• 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:
Forthcoming expansions allow one to debate the real meaning of capitalism and whether Fascism is left-wing or right-wing, which only the AI can do in vanilla.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Forthcoming expansions allow one to debate the real meaning of capitalism and whether Fascism is left-wing or right-wing, which only the AI can do in vanilla.
Yeah ok it was funny the first two times.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
If not meant as a joke then this is probably the wisest question on this thread. My best answer is that the answer to that question is no longer defined, thus rendering the discussion quite meaningless.
But if you're intrested:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalinism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maoism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_democracy
these are often wrongely confused with
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordic_model
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_liberalism
(Note that these are neither communist nor socialist due to them having market economy and private ownership)

The :> emoticon at the end should've given it away. Yes, it was a joke and I'm not 12, either. Glad I have to explain the joke for you. :p
 
The :> emoticon at the end should've given it away. Yes, it was a joke and I'm not 12, either. Glad I have to explain the joke for you. :p
Well one never knows, and as I said it was question of much wisdom, Socrates would've been proud.
 
If not meant as a joke then this is probably the wisest question on this thread. My best answer is that the answer to that question is no longer defined, thus rendering the discussion quite meaningless.
But if you're intrested:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalinism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maoism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_democracy
these are often wrongely confused with
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordic_model
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_liberalism
(Note that these are neither communist nor socialist due to them having market economy and private ownership)


Lovely movie I just wish people would stop taking the joke at a face value.
Wikipedia is bad source of information about some issues. dude... (just because how it works make it unreliable)

And i see how many people who did not read Marx's works claim to know what "communism/marxism" is.
We talk here about theory, not about freaking historical information... You can not "fake" theory, you can "fake" history.
 
  • 5
Reactions:
Wikipedia is bad source of information about some issues. dude... (just because how it works make it unreliable)

And i see how many people who did not read Marx's works claim to know what "communism/marxism" is.
We talk here about theory, not about freaking historical information... You can not "fake" theory, you can "fake" history.
Actually wikipedia has quite a lot of people involved who screen their pages for missinformation, usually in association with libraries and museums (my dear old dad had that as part of his job as a museum intendant to factcheck wikipedia pages a certain number of hours each months, until he reitred that is). And it is actually an accepted source by most major universities today. Icluding the one I go to, University of Lund, the second oldest seat of learning in Sweden.

It certainly beats no source at all.
 
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
I keep coming back here to see if anyone has posted anything new regarding the government types, but there's still some "dinner table" discussion about the meaning of communism, the most overdone political argument of university freshmen...
 
  • 10
Reactions:
Actually wikipedia has quite a lot of people involved who screen their pages for missinformation, usually in association with libraries and museums (my dear old dad had that as part of his job as a museum intendant to factcheck wikipedia pages a certain number of hours each months, until he reitred that is). And it is actually an accepted source by most major universities today. Icluding the one I go to, University of Lund, the second oldest seat of learning in Sweden.

It certainly beats no source at all.

Still, it's always a safe bet to check sources provided in Wikipedia entries and to consult other works before you cite Wikipedia in your works.
 
  • 2
Reactions:
And i see how many people who did not read Marx's works claim to know what "communism/marxism" is.
We talk here about theory, not about freaking historical information... You can not "fake" theory, you can "fake" history.

Having read Marx, I totally sympathize with all the people who don't want to read him. He's a terrible writer, and it doesn't help that he's just flat out wrong about so many things. But I still read quite a bit once upon a time because I've also read Sun Tzu...
 
  • 2
Reactions:
I really want to play this game.

But.

I really feel like the choices and chances Paradox has put into alien races are way too generic and unimaginative. Come on, "reptilian"? "mammalian"? "Avian"? What's the meaning of this? Alien races will probably be something else entirely. Symbiotic beings made up of different organisms. Rocky silica sentient crystal beings. Giant acar-like beings capable of surviving in the void. Hot-tempered small beings that think super fast, or planet-spanning tree-like aliens with super slow metabolism that seem inert to us...

That doesn't mean there can't be "anthropoid", "mammalian" or "avian" aliens, but having the choices boil down to that is a bit disappointing. I was expecting more from you guys!

On the other hand, I do like that:

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

Especially the fact that it's a slider. Paradox and sliders makes me think of great times ;)


I want to see the Mahdist Space Caliphate that wants to expand Shia Islam to all of the Orion belt! Or maybe a secretive astrographer society that controls the Deuterium road? That's the kind of choice I'm talking about!
 
If I'm allowed to steer the communism/socialism/colletivist discussion back on topic, I wonder what kinds of collectivism we'll have, I hope it won't just be communism by any other name, but also have other approaches on it, for an example the jewish minority in europe prior to certain event in the early 1900ds could have been described as somewhat collectivist, in that they treated their own like an extended family. a practice still to some extent practiced by the roma. Now such an idea of collectivism probably require quite few individuals or at least relativly few individual in the collective compared to the greater population.
I just think it's be intresting with species where tribalism and extended family thinking may be more prevalent than in mankind. I'm not saying it has to take it as far as the minorities in europe did (or rather was forced to do). But it's intresting how a species with diffrent natural behaviours might construct a civilisation, for an example a species with fewer individuals (for an example becuase of lower birthrates) might have to be more collectivistic because every individual they lose is a much greater blow to their total population. Or species who's structure of mind caters more to a focused coherent society than the ethernal expansion and wandering of mankind.
I hope such things will be modifieable through the genetic traits system.
 
I'm looking to understand 'Ethos'....

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


My guesses:

So, is Collectivist like a (HIgh Tax Rate) and Individualist like a (Low Tax Rate)? Who can spend the $$$ better, Big Gov't or the Private Sector??
So, is Xenophobe like a (Low Diplomacy / High Slavery) Tolerance, and Xenophile is like (High Diplomacy / Low Slavery Tolerance)? Is it better to have slaves or increased Trade??
So, is Militarist like a (High Might Rating / Low Farming Rating), and Pacifist is like a (Low Might Rating / High Farming Rating) ? Is it better to decrease the foes or increase the friends??
So, is Materialist like a (High Technology Rate / Low Luxuries Rate), and Spiritualist is like a (Low Technology Rate / High Luxuries Rate)? Is it better to Progress now, or make the situation more bearable first??

I wonder about the meanings & their effects.

Any clues provided would be helpful, thanks!
 
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
I'm looking to understand 'Ethos'....

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

My guesses:

So, is Collectivist like a (HIgh Tax Rate) and Individualist like a (Low Tax Rate)? Who can spend the $$$ better, Big Gov't or the Private Sector??
So, is Xenophobe like a (Low Diplomacy / High Slavery) Tolerance, and Xenophile is like (High Diplomacy / Low Slavery Tolerance)? Is it better to have slaves or increased Trade??
So, is Militarist like a (High Might Rating / Low Farming Rating), and Pacifist is like a (Low Might Rating / High Farming Rating) ? Is it better to decrease the foes or increase the friends??
So, is Materialist like a (High Technology Rate / Low Luxuries Rate), and Spiritualist is like a (Low Technology Rate / High Luxuries Rate)? Is it better to Progress now, or make the situation more bearable first??

I wonder about the meanings & their effects.

Any clues provided would be helpful, thanks!
I hope it's more complicated and malleable than that.
 
  • 4
Reactions:
This is a dev diary for the upcoming grand strategy "Communism Definition Simulator" in which the player dynamically experiences debates about the nature of communism as they really occurred in the 20th and 21st centuries.

Preorder and you can find out, and get "Meaning of Socialism" day-one DLC and Soviet hat.

So you have to pay to know about communism and socialism?
That is uh...
...Yay capitalism?
 
  • 2
  • 1
Reactions:
If I'm allowed to steer the communism/socialism/colletivist discussion back on topic, I wonder what kinds of collectivism we'll have, I hope it won't just be communism by any other name, but also have other approaches on it, for an example the jewish minority in europe prior to certain event in the early 1900ds could have been described as somewhat collectivist, in that they treated their own like an extended family. a practice still to some extent practiced by the roma. Now such an idea of collectivism probably require quite few individuals or at least relativly few individual in the collective compared to the greater population.
I just think it's be intresting with species where tribalism and extended family thinking may be more prevalent than in mankind. I'm not saying it has to take it as far as the minorities in europe did (or rather was forced to do). But it's intresting how a species with diffrent natural behaviours might construct a civilisation, for an example a species with fewer individuals (for an example becuase of lower birthrates) might have to be more collectivistic because every individual they lose is a much greater blow to their total population. Or species who's structure of mind caters more to a focused coherent society than the ethernal expansion and wandering of mankind.
I hope such things will be modifieable through the genetic traits system.

Presumable collectivist means working for the good of the society so it'd cover tribalism / familialism / whatever the right word (socialism?) is. Where society expects people to put others before themselves (like, for example, a chaotic good anarchic government ideal) or similar.

That said having a hive-mind with fanatical individuality would be hilarious.
 
I really really sorry I brought up the communism topic so many pages ago. This topic belongs in the dumpster (the dumpster is ideology, and I've been eating from it)
 
  • 3
Reactions:
I really really sorry I brought up the communism topic so many pages ago. This topic belongs in the dumpster (the dumpster is ideology, and I've been eating from it)
Then don't keep brining it up again by whining about it after everyone has at least momentarily stopped that discussion! Hoenstly it's died down like three times only to be restarted by sarcastic snide comments like this who gets another person started.