• We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Hi folks!

The topic of the week in this series of dev diaries for Stellaris is what sets empires and species apart from each other. Most obviously, of course, they look different! We have created a great many (ca 100) unique, animated portraits for the weird and wonderful races you will encounter as you explore the galaxy. These portraits are mostly gameplay agnostic, although we have sorted them into six broad classes (Mammalian, Arthropoid, Avian, Reptilian, Molluscoid or Fungoid) which affect the names of their ships and colonies, for example. To give additional visual variety, their clothes may sometimes vary, and when you open diplomatic communications with them the room they are standing in will appear different depending on their guiding Ethos.

stellaris_dev_diary_05_01_20151019_species.jpg


Speaking of Ethos, this is no doubt the most defining feature of a space empire; it affects the behavior of AI empires, likely technologies, available policies and edicts, valid government types, the opinions of other empires, and - perhaps most importantly - it provides the fuel for internal strife in large and diverse empires. When you create an empire at the start of a new game, you get to invest three points into the various ethics (you can invest two of the points into the same ethic, making you a fanatic.)

Collectivist - Individualist
Xenophobe - Xenophile
Militarist - Pacifist
Materialist - Spiritualist


Your Ethos will limit your valid selection of government types, but there are always at least three to choose from; an oligarchy of some kind, a democracy or a monarchy. They all have their advantages and disadvantages. For example, in monarchies there are no elections, and you do not get to choose your successor when your ruler dies (except in Military Dictatorships), and if you die without an heir, all Factions in the empire will gain strength (oh, and there may be Pretender factions in monarchies...) On the other hand, each ruler may build a special "prestige object" in his or her lifetime, named after themselves. For example, military dictators can build a bigger, badder ship, and Divine Mandate monarchs can build a grand Mausoleum on a planet tile. Of course, both ethics and government types usually also have direct effects on the empire.

stellaris_dev_diary_05_02_20151019_ethics.jpg


Keep in mind, though, that there is a clear difference between the empire you are playing and its founding race. Empires and individual population units ("Pops") have an Ethos, but a species as a whole does not. Instead, what defines a species is simply its initial name, home planet class, and portrait (and possibly certain backstory facts.) Each race also starts out with a number of genetic Traits. As with the empire Ethos, you get to spend points to invest in Traits when you create your founding species at the start of a new game.

It is natural for individual Pops to diverge in their Ethics, especially if they do not live in the core region of your empire. This has far reaching consequences for the internal dynamics of empires; how Pops react to your actions, and the creation and management of Factions, etc (more on that in a much later dev diary!) Traits are not as dynamic as ethics, but even they can change (or be changed - this is also something we will speak of more at a later date...)

The traits and ethics of individual Pops of course also affect their happiness in various environments and situations. Naturally, they cannot even live on planets that are totally anathema to them…

That's all for now. Next Week: Leaders and Rulers!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
A moral democracy is explicitly said to be guided by moralistic principle and non-violence, so I would imagine it's a sort of democracy where the politicians are heavily vetted, either politically or socially, based on the morality of the society or a specific ethos surrounding non-violence.

Like, it's probably more of a de facto form of government than an actual one.

I'd imagine if your pops stopped supporting pacifism you'd shift to some other form of democracy.
 
what would a spiritual focused democracy look like then? The example we have is a materialistic civilization, but that definition would fit a spritual democracy too. Hmmmnn

We get so much flavour out of a few buttons, I love it.
 
A better term might be "constitutional democracy" or "legalistic democracy". The gist is there is no higher authority than the law, that law spells out the rights of an invidual and the limits of the government, and lawyers focus on interpreting those rights and limits
Working democracy? ;)
 
A better term might be "constitutional democracy" or "legalistic democracy". The gist is there is no higher authority than the law, that law spells out the rights of an invidual and the limits of the government, and lawyers focus on interpreting those rights and limits

That would more conventionally be called a "nomocracy", which is typically referred to simply as the rule of law. It is mostly independent of actual government type. Only autocracies, where the ruler is held above the law, are inherenty anti-nomocratic.

A moral democracy is explicitly said to be guided by moralistic principle and non-violence, so I would imagine it's a sort of democracy where the politicians are heavily vetted, either politically or socially, based on the morality of the society or a specific ethos surrounding non-violence.

Like, it's probably more of a de facto form of government than an actual one.

I'd imagine if your pops stopped supporting pacifism you'd shift to some other form of democracy.

This is a good way to put it. American progressivism or European social democracy would be real world moral democratic ideologies. They can, of course, still be terrifying and launch crusades that annihilate entire civilizations that refuse to wear pants. I certainly hope it's the xenophile trait and not the pacifist trait that enables Moralism.
 
That would more conventionally be called a "nomocracy", which is typically referred to simply as the rule of law. It is mostly independent of actual government type. Only autocracies, where the ruler is held above the law, are inherenty anti-nomocratic.



This is a good way to put it. American progressivism or European social democracy would be real world moral democratic ideologies. They can, of course, still be terrifying and launch crusades that annihilate entire civilizations that refuse to wear pants. I certainly hope it's the xenophile trait and not the pacifist trait that enables Moralism.
Only some autocracies have rulers above the law. Most monarchies does not (Absolute monarchs and enlightened despots are the monarchs that are)
 
Only some autocracies have rulers above the law. Most monarchies does not (Absolute monarchs and enlightened despots are the monarchs that are)

Yeah, monarchies are not always autocracies.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Only some autocracies have rulers above the law. Most monarchies does not (Absolute monarchs and enlightened despots are the monarchs that are)
Autocracy means somewhere with an autocratic ruler, IE. one not constrained by law or anything else. All autocracies have rulers that are above the law. Not all monarchies are autocratic.
 
  • 2
  • 2
Reactions:
This is a good way to put it. American progressivism or European social democracy would be real world moral democratic ideologies. They can, of course, still be terrifying and launch crusades that annihilate entire civilizations that refuse to wear pants. I certainly hope it's the xenophile trait and not the pacifist trait that enables Moralism.

I don't see why xenophile would be the key to moral form of goverment. The thing about pacifist ethos is that the whole society from its core is rather no violent. You will probably find little violent crimes happening in such society. Pacifist ethos mean that the people solve issues with diplomacy not with violence, these society have a very developed legal system. Basically moral democracy need a very strong legal system to work as well as a race that can differ right from wrong. Only pacifist races have the right society to make such goverment work.

A xenophobe moralist democracy would find no wrong in oppressing foreign races because for a xenophobic race it is moraly correct to enslave foreign races although they find the concept of war morally wrong, if they are forced to war they will then show little regard for their enemies.

A pacifist xenophobe race may have a legal system that basically mean that other races who dwell in thier empire are their slaves. They would probably not actively attack other empire as they hate war but any foreign population under their control would be severely oppresed, maybe that much with violence but by the legal system, and if they break the law then the pacifist society would respond with violence as breaking laws in a society so based on laws would not be tolerated at all and would probably be seen as the individual declaring war on the goverment which would justfy violence.

Militaristic societies you just solve everything with violence, crimes are rampant in many such societies as the concept might makes right exist very clearly in these societies. Goverments are generally to use militaries society in line as such race don't abide any law other then the law of might.

A xenophilic militaristic race would be ruled by violence but race don't matter much if at all, powerful rule over the weak is all that matter.

A xenophobic militaristic race would see themself as the rightful rulers over other races and would band together to keep any foreign race from having any power in their society but then they would fight between themself.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
This game looks so good. I'm really excited for it. Can we please get an estimated release date (and yes I'm probably going to ask in every DD :)).
 
Communist democracy is an oxymoron, Communism according to the communist manifesto is inseprable from violent uprising. Socialism through gradual democratic reforms is called social democracy, and there has been plenty of social democratic parties in power. Diffrence is since they work through gradual reforms none of them has achieved a full on socialist society. Then again neither has any communist uprising, those tend to get stuck in the dictatorship of the proletareat, and unlike communism those countries who have dabbeled in social democracy are all on the top ten richest countries per capita list while the formerly communist ones score very badly (russia for an example has a median standard of life worse than india).

Also get your terminology right communism is not the same thing as socialism.

Only the first phase after the revolution is anticipated to be a dictatorship of the proletariat. Then the nation would progress to a classless society and a form of direct democracy. Marxism in real life never progressed beyond the first stage on a nation state scale, but small communities have attemped communism with some success since the time of the Essenes.
 
  • 2
  • 1
Reactions:
This is fantastic, I love the fact that the farther you get from the core of the empire, the more pop ethos' will start to drift away, meaning that far-reaching colonies will tend to be harder and harder to appease, resulting in rebellion in unexpected places. I have a great dislike for 'universal' happiness (Civ 5), and a moderate dislike for simplistic colony-based happiness that cares less about population and more about conditions/buildings (Endless Space).

It's also great confirmation that different civilizations will behave in different ways, and pursue particular objectives that make sense for their ethos. Which is something I was afraid of; 4X space games are full of samey races/empires with nothing but numeric modifiers that do little to nothing to change gameplay.

This is looking more amazing every week. Thanks DoomDark!
 
  • 1
Reactions:
I would say that the Tau have quite the militaristic culture, even if it isnt their preferred method. But collectivist is probably a better fit than that. But then again, the military is most of what we see in the W40k universe. Plus.. if they had a choice they would chose a galaxy at peace, so maybe not militaristic after all.

Xenophile/Collectivist could work, though there is the question of which of the mentioned ones best describe their leadership structure.. That would almost be a Theocracy of sorts. The problem comes with the third one, since they are sort of both materialist and spiritualist, with their high focus on science and their Zen mindset. Though from reading Fire Warrior, I would almost give them a point in spiritualist. Not sure though

I would say either 2 Collectivist 1 Zenophile or 1 Collectivist, 1 Zenophile, 1 spiritualist

It just depends on the mean of "materialist" in the game. If it means "there are no trascendent powers and the world is ruled by the philosophies and acts of man", then the Tau are wholly materialistic, with their resistance to the Warp and so on. If it means "there are no values other than power and wealth", they are not. I think the opposition in Stellaris is a "scientist-priest" one, not a "bankster-artist" one, but we'll see.
 
It just depends on the mean of "materialist" in the game. If it means "there are no trascendent powers and the world is ruled by the philosophies and acts of man", then the Tau are wholly materialistic, with their resistance to the Warp and so on. If it means "there are no values other than power and wealth", they are not. I think the opposition in Stellaris is a "scientist-priest" one, not a "bankster-artist" one, but we'll see.

I agree. It's probably the philosophy of materialism, not economic materialism.
 
I'm on the UNSC hype train so much space I want ODST's (what's planetary combat like)
 
what would a spiritual focused democracy look like then? The example we have is a materialistic civilization, but that definition would fit a spritual democracy too. Hmmmnn

Egypt after the election of the Muslims Brothers was briefly a spiritual democracy, if Iran would have reforms then could it be one too and even Israel could be called one.

But unless the dogma of your religion is very tolerant towards other religions would there always be an internal conflict between democracy and spirituality in those nations. You could have spiritual factions who want to go back to the glorious spiritual old days and religious liberals who stress the democratic part. Should people of other religions be allowed to vote? What about other sects? Moderate practitioners? At what point do you call a "moderate" an infidel? Strife seems inherent in spiritual democracies.
 
  • 3
Reactions:
Finally I can create the people of my dreams. A militaristic xenophobic dictatorship of humans that want only intergalactic war.

"My people. Sons and daughters, for many years, we have been a broken nation. Shunned, oppressed, and conquered . 10 years ago, I asked for time, and that time was granted by you. You, the strength in my arm, the holders of my dreams. In the time you have given me, I have rebuilt our nation, I have rebuilt our strength, AND I have rebuilt our pride! On this day, we stand united once more. On this day, those driven to divide us will hear our voice! On this day, we shall act as one, and we shall be ignored NO MORE!
...Defenders of the Helghast dream, NOW IS OUR TIME!"
 
Only the first phase after the revolution is anticipated to be a dictatorship of the proletariat. Then the nation would progress to a classless society and a form of direct democracy. Marxism in real life never progressed beyond the first stage on a nation state scale, but small communities have attemped communism with some success since the time of the Essenes.
The classless society with direct democracy is the socialist society so yeah I said that. And no your small communes have generally not, they have not brought about the socialist society through revolution and the dictatorship of the proletareat thus they are not communist but generally have agreed to becomme such a commune which makes it a democratic reform intoa scoialist state, thus it's social democracy.
Again as marx said "Communism cannot exist without the violent uprising".
 
  • 1
Reactions: