• 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.
Status
Not open for further replies.

Stellaris Dev Diary #54 - Ethics Rework

Hello everyone and welcome to another Stellaris development diary. Now that 1.4 is out, we can finally start properly talking about the 1.5 'Banks' update, which will be a major update with an accompanying (unannounced) expansion. As of right now we cannot provide any details on when 1.5 will come out, or anything about the unannounced expansion, so please don't ask. :)

Today's topic is a number of changes coming to ethics in the 1.5 update. Everything in this diary is part of the free update. Please note that values shown in screenshots are always non-final.

Authoritarian vs Egalitarian
One of the things in Stellaris I was never personally happy with was the Collectivism vs Individualism ethic. While interesting conceptually, the mechanics that the game presented for the ethics simply did not match either their meanings or flavor text, meaning you ended up with a Collectivist ethos that was somehow simultaneously egalitarian and 100% in on slavery, while Individualism was a confused jumble between liberal democratic values and randian free-market capitalism. For this reason we've decided to rebrand these ethics into something that should both be much more clear in its meaning, and match the mechanics as they are.

Authoritarian replaces Collectivist and represents belief in hierarchial rule and orderly, stratified societies. Authoritarian pops tolerate slavery and prefer to live in autocracies.
Egalitarian replaces Individualist and represents belief in individual rights and a level playing field. Egalitarian pops dislike slavery and elitism and prefer to live in democracies.

While I understand this may cause some controversy and will no doubt spark debate over people's interpretation of words like Authoritarian and Individualist, I believe that we need to work with the mechanics we have, and as it stand we simply do not have good mechanics for a Collectivism vs Individualism axis while the mechanics we have fit the rebranded ethics if not perfectly then at least a whole lot better.
2016_12_08_1.png

2016_12_08_5.png


Pop Ethics Rework
Another mechanic that never quite felt satisfying is the ethics divergence mechanic. Not only is it overly simplified with just a single value determining if pops go towards or from empire ethics, the shift rarely makes sense: Why would xenophobe alien pops diverge away from xenophobe just because they're far away from the capital of a xenophobic empire? Furthermore, the fact that pops could have anything from one to three different ethics made it extremely difficult to actually quantify what any individual pop's ethics actually mean for how they relate to the empire. For this reason we've decided to revamp the way pop ethics work in the following way:
  • Each pop in your empire will now only embrace a single, non-fanatic ethic. At the start of the game, your population will be made of up of only the ethics that you picked in species setup, but as your empire grows, its population will become more diverse in their views and wants.
  • Each ethic now has an attraction value for each pop in your empire depending on both the empire's situation and their own situation. For example, enslaved pops tend to become more egalitarian, while pops living around non-enslaved aliens become more xenophilic (and pops living around enslaved aliens more xenophobic). Conversely, fighting a lot of wars will increase the attraction for militarism across your entire empire, while an alien empire purging pops of a particular species will massively increase the attraction for xenophobic for the species being purged.
  • Over time, the ethics of your pops will drift in such a way that it roughly matches the overall attraction of that value. For example, if your materialist attraction sits at 10% for decades, it's likely that after that time, around 10% of your pops will be materialist. There is some random factor so it's likely never going to match up perfectly, but the system is built to try and go towards the mean, so the more overrepresented an ethic is compared to its attraction, the more likely pops are to drift away from it and vice versa.
2016_12_08_3.png


So what does the single ethic per pop mean in terms of how it affects pop happiness? Well, this brings us to the new faction system, which we will cover briefly in this dev diary, and get back to more in depth later.

Faction Rework
One thing we feel is currently missing from Stellaris is agency for your pops. Sure, they have their ethics and will get upset if you have policies that don't suit them, but that's about the only way they have of expressing their desires, and there is no tie-in between pop ethics and the politics systems in the game. To address this and also to create a system that will better fit the new pop ethics, we've decided to revamp the faction system in the following manner:
  • Factions are no longer purely rebel groupings, but instead represent political parties, popular movements and other such interest groups, and mostly only consist of pops of certain ethics. For example, the Supremacist faction desires complete political dominance for their own species, and is made up exclusively of Xenophobic pops, while the Isolationist faction wants diplomatic isolation and a strong defense, and can be joined by both Pacifist and Xenophobe pops. You do not start the game with any factions, but rather they will form over the course of the game as their interests become relevant
  • Factions have issues related to their values and goals, and how well the empire responds to those issues will determine the overall happiness level of the faction. For example, the Supremacists want the ruler to be of their species and are displeased by the presence of free alien populations in the empire. They will also get a temporary happiness boost whenever you defeat alien empires in war.
  • The happiness level of a faction determines the base happiness of all pops belonging to it. This means that where any pop not belonging to a faction has a base happiness of 50%, a pop belonging to a faction that have their happiness reduced to 35% because of their issues will have a base happiness of only 35% before any other modifiers are applied, meaning that displeasing a large and influential faction can result in vastly reduced productivity across your empire. As part of this, happiness effects from policies, xenophobia, slavery, etc have been merged into the faction system, so engaging in alien slavery will displease certain factions instead of having each pop individually react to it.
  • Factions have an influence level determined by the number of pops that belong to it. In addition to making its pops happier, a happy faction will provide an influence boost to their empire.
2016_12_08_4.png

2016_12_08_2.png


We will come back to factions in greater detail in a later dev diary, going over topics such as how separatists and rebellious slaves will work, and how factions can be used to change your empire ethics, but for now we are done for today. Next week we'll be talking about another new feature that we have dubbed 'Traditions and Unity'. See you then!
 
Last edited:
  • 367
  • 53
  • 17
Reactions:
  • I like that you're trying to make clarifying changes, but to be honest, these are more confusing than the original, and there's a major problem with this statement: "Egalitarian replaces Individualist and represents belief in individual rights and a level playing field. Egalitarian pops dislike slavery and elitism and prefer to live in democracies. "
  • Thing is, those who truly respect individual rights FERVENTLY oppose true democracies, preferring law-based republics, etc. where rights are based on based on individual rights instead of democracy, which is majority rule & inherently suppressed the rights of individuals under the beliefs of the majority, however slight. This fundamental misunderstanding is part of the reason things are so jacked up in the US right now. A true, if colorful, example is that democracy is two wolves & a sheep deciding what to have for dinner. Frederic Bastiat wrote "The Law", which showed incredible insight for a document written so long ago & close to the US founding, by a foreign observer (French).
Very true. Very true indeed. The dictatorship of the masses is STILL a dictatorship, and a morally questionable one when it's just the ever-changing whims of the slight majority.
 
  • 2
Reactions:
This is why I think we need to have a distinction between distribution of power (hierarchy vs egalitarian), and social values (collectivism vs individualism).

This actually maps to the political compass.

I'd suggest junking 'egalitarianism' too tbh. If you have hierarchy, the opposite is anarchy. Let's not drag in another loosely-connected concept when there is a tightly-connected one available, since it just causes problems.
 
  • 6
Reactions:
Haha, all I can say is Mind = Blown.

It absolutely boggles the mind that you still went ahead with this, even after having it so exhaustively detailed to you through practically all avenues (here, Reddit, Steam, etc.) why it was a terrible idea on so many different levels. It's politically ignorant, it pushes real-world politics and reeks of virtue-signaling, it's completely inconsistent with how the other ethics are presented and thus comes across as unpolished and random, it shows an astounding level of ideological illiteracy, and it does absolutely nothing to solve the issue of potential misrepresentation, because it simply misrepresents something else based on the same flawed argument relating to slavery vs. not-slavery.

I'm honestly a bit shocked, because it's just so "out there" that I hoped that whomever originally pitched this would take the criticism to heart, read a bit on the subject of ideologies, politics and ethics, and discard the idea, or rework it heavily. It's simply so ridiculous and such nonsense that anything less couldn't be taken seriously.

Someone at Paradox is legitimately an idiot. Possibly multiple persons, but there's definitely a minimum of one.

I honestly have no words. This coming from Paradox, of all companies, is just.. I don't think there's words to express it.

I don't know. It's not ideal, to be sure. But I'm not sure it's THAT cataclysmic. All it would take is some minor tinkering to make the tone ever so slightly neutral, which, I admit, is needed. And as we've seen from this nearly 500+ forum thread on the WORDS ALONE, the whole thing was clearly pretty delicate and will likely need several more iterations.
 
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
  • I like that you're trying to make clarifying changes, but to be honest, these are more confusing than the original, and there's a major problem with this statement: "Egalitarian replaces Individualist and represents belief in individual rights and a level playing field. Egalitarian pops dislike slavery and elitism and prefer to live in democracies. "
  • Thing is, those who truly respect individual rights FERVENTLY oppose true democracies, preferring law-based republics, etc. where rights are based on based on individual rights instead of democracy, which is majority rule & inherently suppressed the rights of individuals under the beliefs of the majority, however slight. This fundamental misunderstanding is part of the reason things are so jacked up in the US right now. A true, if colorful, example is that democracy is two wolves & a sheep deciding what to have for dinner. Frederic Bastiat wrote "The Law", which showed incredible insight for a document written so long ago & close to the US founding, by a foreign observer (French).

Urgh. Really? Come on. It's clearly referring to democracies, as opposed to the other possible government types in Stellaris, such as dictatorships and monarchies.
 
  • 3
Reactions:
I'd suggest junking 'egalitarianism' too tbh. If you have hierarchy, the opposite is anarchy. Let's not drag in another loosely-connected concept when there is a tightly-connected one available, since it just causes problems.
That seems reasonable. Though to be honest, I still think Individualism has issues as a word too...It means too much and too little, all at once, to too many people.
 
My biggest problem with Fanatic Egalitarian is the description.

A society that does not see to the needs and rights of its members is not a society - it is a crime.

Inclusion of the word "needs" (and not solely "rights") implies fulfilling this mandate through force - which is authoritarian. So in Stellaris Egalitarian by its very definition is not the opposite of authoritarian.

The opposite of "authority" is "liberty". What is the opposite of "authoritarian"? "Liberal"? "Libertarian"? "Anarchist"? My guess is that because all of these terms have some sort of baggage/first impression, Wiz decided to opt out of them. But because of that we are left with two "opposing" ethics that most definitely are not opposed.
 
  • 4
Reactions:
It baffles me that anyone would even try, in any capacity, to judge what the Soviet Union was based on their propaganda rather than their reality.

"The Soviet Union made everyone equal" is an inherently false statement- you might as well claim that We've Always Been At War With Eastasia.
 
  • 5
  • 2
Reactions:
My biggest problem with Fanatic Egalitarian is the description.

"A society that does not see to the needs and rights of its members is not a society - it is a crime."

Inclusion of the word "needs" (and not solely "rights") implies fulfilling this mandate through force - which is authoritarian. So in Stellaris Egalitarian by its very definition is not the opposite of authoritarian.

The addition of the words "it is a crime" also imply that the needs need to be defended in law which runs contrary to negative freedom and anarchist egalitarian ideologies.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
I don't know. It's not ideal, to be sure. But I'm not sure it's THAT cataclysmic. All it would take is some minor tinkering to make the tone ever so slightly neutral, which, I admit, is needed. And as we've seen from this nearly 500+ forum thread on the WORDS ALONE, the whole thing was clearly pretty delicate and will likely need several more iterations.

It's not cataclysmic, it's simply wrong. Objectively so. It's not about the tone of it, really - although it could bear improvement, the fact still remains that Egalitarianism is not opposed by Authoritarianism. The opposite of Authoritarianism is Libertarianism. The opposite of Egalitarianism is Elitism or Exceptionalism. They've essentially traded one pair of Ethics that fitted, into two Ethics that not only doesn't fit, but that aren't even philosophical opposites by any means.

Collectivism and Individualism are relevant ethical considerations that are dichotomous to eachother and mutually exclusive in practice, and if one assumes Slavery to also include willing slavery or servitude, this attempt to prettify collectivism becomes entirely unnecessary.

Collectivism vs. Individualism made perfect sense in every way; mechanically, narratively, philosophically. Authoritarianism vs. Egalitarianism doesn't make a lick of sense in any of them. This has been covered and detailed extensively and exhaustively throughout countless threads here and elsewhere. That's why it's so mind-boggling that they still went ahead with it. It takes a serious level of pig-headed stubbornness and doubling-down on political illiteracy to do that after being so thoroughly steamrolled every single time it's discussed.

Is Paradox a house of yes-men? Is the corporate culture within the company truly this strong? It's like someone's stuck in an echo-chamber while there's a library bus from the political sciences & philosophy university blaring it's horns just outside the door, begging for attention. I just don't get it.
 
  • 5
  • 4
Reactions:
Inclusion of the word "needs" (and not solely "rights") implies fulfilling this mandate through force - which is authoritarian. So in Stellaris Egalitarian by its very definition is not the opposite of authoritarian.

No, it doesn't. It makes no implication regarding the means by which it seeks to achieve the goal.

In the absence of property rights, for example, there's no use of force required because it's not taking anything from anyone. And property rights are themselves pretty dependent on authoritarian social structures - you only own stuff because if someone takes it from you, the state beats them up for you. They would never evolve in an society that had developed along the lines Paradox have chosen to describe as 'egalitarian'; everyone would simply believe that everything should be shared because (by definition of it being their ethic) that's what they believe. So they'd share. It's the way the society works, they have no concept of not doing so.
 
  • 5
  • 1
Reactions:
It baffles me that anyone would even try, in any capacity, to judge what the Soviet Union was based on their propaganda rather than their reality.

"The Soviet Union made everyone equal" is an inherently false statement- you might as well claim that We've Always Been At War With Eastasia.



Even if the soviet union was a massive failure, it's not beyond the suspension of disbelief to imagine a fictional alien race might have created something similar that actually worked.
 
  • 6
  • 1
Reactions:
Equal means "being the same". Same means "identical, not different". Look these definition up and you'll see what I mean.

Now when we strip "egalitarianism" apart, it becomes "equalism", as in "making people more equal". A fanatical egalitarian therefore wants to make everyone identical and not different.

What does this mean in a political context? Nazis were fanatical egalitarian xenophobes (discriminate based on the outside and the inside), and communists were (are) fanatical egalitarian xenophiles (discriminate based on the inside).

There's is a clear contradiction between letting people choose to be different and unequal of their own accord, and enforcing equality.

Do you see my logic? I think when you say egalitarian, you mean "individualist". Individualism means empowering the individual to govern their own affairs, and this means equality before the law



Authoritarian is not an end. It is a means to an end.

Communist regimes made everyone equal. They were authoritarians, but also egalitarian.

You're not one of those "communism just hasn't been done right" people are you? Is that why Paradox have made this change? OK, now I'm quite annoyed o_O

I support relatively high taxation and redistribution, but this is authoritarian, because it's essentially forcing other people to give up things they've made for the community. That requires a strong, centralised power in order to collect the revenue. It's an acceptable form of authoritarianism, but it is authoritarianism.

You are putting your political assumptions, what you find is right and wrong, in your way of thinking.

Poltical standing is devided between to axis, command economy and laissez-faire, and between rights of the people, Freedom and Control.

The Soviet Union was a Command Economy and was all about control. The first part, the Economy, isn´t represented in Stellaris at all.

This game doesn´t do economics. So, the term Egalitarian represents are very American thinking: Every one should have the same rights. The "Liberal" thing is a very American term, here in Europe, a liberal is something else (maybe you are even European, I cannot know). So Egalitarian is more of a French Revolution thing and not making the people equal economically. A Stellaris Soviet Union would be Authoritarian, Militaristic and Materialistic.

The confusion results in a two-party system vs. a multiple party system.

You don´t like the term because you don´t like command economies, that´s okay, but just call it Libertarian in your head. It´s only a word which is different understood in different countries.
 
  • 3
  • 2
Reactions:
  • 6
Reactions:
Even if the soviet union was a massive failure, it's not beyond the suspension of disbelief to imagine a fictional alien race might have created something similar that actually worked.
Oh, trust me, I'm a firm believer that communism is one of the better political models in theory but suffers from an incompatibility with human nature. That an alien species could accomplish something like it successfully is entirely plausible to me.

My comment is more pointed at people in this thread who have insisted that the Soviet Union was egalitarian and resulted in actual equality- it very pointedly didn't, regardless of what it said it did.
 
  • 2
  • 1
Reactions:
Y'know, since it's basically just a tweak in a localization file, I could just make every person an individual mod using whatever their preferred pairing is. It might actually be quicker to do that than have this argument.
 
  • 5
Reactions:
It's say's "-it is a crime" which directly implies that this ethos enforces that it's people's needs are met through use of the law.

It's pretty clear from the context that it doesn't mean it's an actual crime. It's disparaging a society in which people aren't cared for as not being a society at all. The crime is metaphorical, though the tacit acknowledgement of the concept of a crime does imply rule of law rather than a free association of mutually-agreed-rights-holding individuals.
 
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
I'd suggest junking 'egalitarianism' too tbh. If you have hierarchy, the opposite is anarchy. Let's not drag in another loosely-connected concept when there is a tightly-connected one available, since it just causes problems.

My one concern about that would be that in an anarchist society, hierarchies can arise spontaneously.

I.e. in anarcho-capitalism, you have hierarchies in business and wealth. Egalitarianism can then be seen as an attempt to keep any form of power from becoming too concentrated.

Of course, hierarchy only arises in anarchy when people are individualists. If people are collectivists, you get left-wing anarchy, which in its extreme form I compared to a hive mind (everyone *can* betray the collective and obtain power, but they don't). This acknowledges that the difference between left-wing and right-wing anarchists is their understanding of human nature.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Status
Not open for further replies.