Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries
Jump to latest Follow Reply
  • 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.
Stellaris 53853 Bug Reports 36907 Console edition 1310 Suggestions 21548 Tech Support 3192 Multiplayer 392 User Mods 4786 Stellaris AAR (After Action Reports)
Status
Not open for further replies.
Previous dev diary Next dev diary
Show only dev responses

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:
Sort by date Sort by reaction score
...or we could think about it differently altogether, and rather than 'authoritarian' and 'liberal' being ethics in themselves, they simply refer to where the ethic lies on the wheel.

Thinking about it, Fanatics of any stripe are pretty much going to be authoritarian about it. The entire point of the USSR, in theory, was to be the most egalitarian place that had ever existed. That was what Lenin and the gang set out to do. How did it go about it? Well, first they set up an authoritarian dictatorship, because they had to to make sure people understood the right way of thinking.

The fanatics are fanatics. They believe that their view is exactly right, and so by definition everyone else's is wrong. So they must stop anyone else from having a say. Until they've learned to think properly, like the fanatic does. THEN they can enjoy the new liberal paradise that I'll be setting up just the moment you'r ready for me to lay down power. Honest.

Everyone in the middle is NOT a fanatic. They discuss things and look to compromise with people. Normal materialists debate religious policy with normal Spiritualists, and the two agree to disagree and have the separation of church and state. The acknowledge they may be wrong, and that other points of view have to be respected, by virtue of not being fanatics.

Then stick in individualism and collectivism and elitism vs egalitarianism.
 
  • 3
Reactions:
Luckmann said:
Equality of opportunity isn't "very anti-authoritarian". People can have the same equality of opportunity within an authoritarian regime, provided the power structures are open to it. Authoritarianism isn't inherently anti-egalitarian in that regard, which is part of the whole issue, really. You are entirely correct in regards to Equality of Outcome, however.

Authoritarianism does not inherently oppose equality of opportunity (which could be interpreted as "regular" Egalitarianism).
Equality of outcome requires and mandates authority to enforce it (which could be interpreted as "fanatic" Egalitarianism).

No matter how we cut it, Authoritarianism vs. Egalitarianism is quite simply nonsense. Complete nonsense.
Click to expand...

You got me. I agree, an authoritarian regime can also have equality of opportunity.
 
  • 3
Reactions:
Luckmann said:
Interestingly, this tends to subvert the religious foundation over time, making them either lose power or reform, but now I'm just not sure where I was going with this response anymore.
Click to expand...

Maybe not, but it is an interesting observation for another discussion :)
 
Naselus said:
Thinking about it, Fanatics of any stripe are pretty much going to be authoritarian about it.
Click to expand...

Not necessarily. Fanatic Xenophobe/xenophile aren't - they merely impose an opinion of the alien - what the society does about it up for grabs. Fanatic pacifist is definitely not authoritarian (not declaring war is about as anti-authoritarian as you can get), and fanatic militarist simply means you love war. If you wage way through the hiring of mercenaries or a volunteer army it need not be authoritarian. I could go on but I think you see the point.
 
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
Beric said:
Not necessarily. Fanatic Xenophobe/xenophile aren't - they merely impose an opinion of the alien - what the society does about it up for grabs.
Click to expand...

That act of imposition is, by definition, authoritarian. In fact, impose is a good word for it. Fanatics, by definition, wish to impose their ideology on others. Normals don't.

Beric said:
Fanatic pacifist is definitely not authoritarian (not declaring war is about as anti-authoritarian as you can get), and fanatic militarist simply means you love war. If you wage way through the hiring of mercenaries or a volunteer army it need not be authoritarian. I could go on but I think you see the point.
Click to expand...

Pacifism is not automatically anti-authoritarian. Most corporations are pacifists, and most have extremely authoritarian internal structures. And a Fanatic Militarist doesn't necessarily love war, either - he loves the military and give it disproportionate influence or control over civil society. He's basically looking to overturn civilian oversight set up a military dictatorship or junta.
 
  • 3
  • 3
Reactions:
I don't understand this system, don't the same problems arise but with more of an internal power struggle? Democracies still seem to me as a messy waste of time, if everyone's going to be divergent then nobodies going to be happy but you can at least get everybody under control in an autocracy. I sure hope the happiness mechanics are going to get changed along with this cus if it works harshly on both sides then oligarchical governments are going to become the new norm.
 
So basically, this is how I see it:

Ethicsmap.png


White = spiritualist
Black = materialist
Grey = either/neither

It's mostly like the political compass, but switching things around a bit to better reflect Stellaris.

Individualists/liberals get democracy, while authoritarian/collectivists get dictatorships/autocracy. Left-right needn't affect politics, but it should affect ethics.

I can see it has its flaws, of course (in particular, I think I've misallocated government types).


I suppose my main point is that if they aren't going to add another ethic, they should use authoritarian/collectivist vs liberal/individualist, or hierarchical/elitist vs egalitarian.
 
Last edited:
  • 4
  • 3
  • 1
Reactions:
Red Roo said:
Keyword; egalitarian.
Click to expand...
I assumed you wanted to play as a Soviet-style empire so I suggested militarist, authoritarian, materialist. I also suggested fanatic materialist, militarist for a Soviet-style empire shortly after. This might be better suited for you, since it's right in the middle of the authoritarian-egalitarian scale like you seem to want. All in all, I think the best government type for you is despotic hegemony, which isn't available if you select egalitarian. That is assuming that the government types don't change.

Stellaris isn't exactly a political simulator, you got to take what you can.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
spartanlemur said:
So basically, this is how I see it:

View attachment 223372

White = spiritualist
Black = materialist
Grey = either/neither

It's mostly like the political compass, but switching things around a bit to better reflect Stellaris.

Individualists/liberals get democracy, while authoritarian/collectivists get dictatorships/autocracy. Left-right needn't affect politics, but it should affect ethics.

I can see it has its flaws, of course (in particular, I think I've misallocated government types).


I suppose my main point is that if they aren't going to add another ethic, they should use authoritarian/collectivist vs liberal/individualist, or hierarchical/elitist vs egalitarian.
Click to expand...
A chart somehow makes it way easier for me to understand what you're driving at. I think this model is the way to go.
 
  • 3
Reactions:
Here's my thoughts for 1.5: for ethics I like to see more and more points for them. Look at it like an RPG point value system; having some points have a value of 0 or -1 would allow a player to have add more. Perhaps the more powerful or 'cooler' ethics would cost more in points where as more role defying, indepth, ethical picks would be cheaper and more available. You did that for the trait picks, why not vary up ethics? Speaking of traits; traits do need a big overhaul. There are several mods that add up to 50 traits any one would do with a template.
 
  • 3
Reactions:
If a pop is outnumbered on a planet in terms of ethics is it more likely that pop will conform to the majority of the colony. For instance if one xenophillic pop is on a planet with a lot of xenophobes, is it more likely to change to xenophobe? If not, that would be an interesting thing to consider for the future. It would seem more realistic, as pops would mingle with other pops in a colony and would inevitably have an impact on other pops ethics over time. It would force you to deal with your unhappy pops lest they all diverge in ethics and strengthen faction support. It would also make it so certain colonies would become more or less all members of a faction and then want to separate from the parent empire once enough of the pops on the planet have joined. Effectively it would give rise to separatist colonies, which I am sure could lead into something more!
Also, it would interesting to add negative modifiers to government types, like a democracy focused around freedom of speech would have a small ethics divergence modifier making it more likely to diverge in ethics or something.
 
CaptKent said:
Here's my thoughts for 1.5: for ethics I like to see more and more points for them. Look at it like an RPG point value system; having some points have a value of 0 or -1 would allow a player to have add more. Perhaps the more powerful or 'cooler' ethics would cost more in points where as more role defying, indepth, ethical picks would be cheaper and more available. You did that for the trait picks, why not vary up ethics? Speaking of traits; traits do need a big overhaul. There are several mods that add up to 50 traits any one would do with a template.
Click to expand...

That's a good point. Crusader Kings 2 had the "seven sins" originally, but later ended up including plenty of traits without opposites.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
I still have a severe issue with authoritarian being tied in with slavery, it makes sense for some groupings (xenophobe/collectivist) but not others. I typically roleplay as a Fanatic Materialist, Science Directorate. Makes perfect sense for them to be collectivist, but I like to think that the scientists running this society are more interested in putting pops to work in the industries most suited to their traits rather than outright slavery, kind of like Tau or the Harmonium.

I really think that slavery tolerance needs to be ghettoized into the Xenophobe ethic and authoritarian needs to be reworked somehow.

Or maybe tie slavery tolerance in with governments as opposed to ethics. As it stands, two people can look at a Fanatic Materialist/Individualist pop and reach two different conclusions, governments are more transparent.
 
Last edited:
Radically Right Wing said:
I literally just made this account to reply to you. I see people online who are rabid Leftists like you who like to go around pretentiously and talk down to us, and screw you people. I am not rich. My family is not rich. I have never been rich unlike these Elitist Socialist scum in my country that infest the Left Wing. The only reason rich people want Socialism so much is so they can take more away from me and my family and screw those people too, but this is not about them. This is about you. I have been a lurker on Stellaris threads for many months now because it is my second favorite Paradox game after EU4, and I have all the DLC to both, so I think Wiz should care a little bit about what I have to say. I am a paying customer and no the Socialists didn't buy me those DLC because they were too busy taking pictures with celebrities. I made this account for one reason and one reason only. And that glorious and Just reason, which I am about to execute at this very moment, is to say the following and only the following:

I strongly disagree with your political views.




>inb4 banned because Right Wingers are allowed to buy our stuff but the peasants aren't allowed to speak.
Click to expand...

Don't get riled up by a senseless comment such as that.

I expect the reality is that Person has a startling lack of knowledge when it comes to political philosophy. Because right and left are very messy classifications - also, you're probably not as "right-wing" as you think you are (not that it means much anyway).
 
  • 6
Reactions:
Authoritarianism and individualism are not necessarily opposite, as many people in this thread have probably already said.

Ethics need a complete overhaul, rather than just renaming one thing.
 
Wiz said:
I really think Hive Minds and the like need special mechanics that are outside the regular ethics system, so if/when we add them that's almost certainly the route we'll go. Same if we were to say, add playable robots or gas giant dwellers.
Click to expand...
then what for some degree of capitalism? are they gone? can't I make a democratic society and ban slavery but completely capitalistic and get my nice share of energy credit? it's not fair
 
  • 1
Reactions:
now what about combat update? in heart of iron we're needed to split our army while in this game we merge into single killer fleet
 
  • 2
Reactions:
tanny said:
then what for some degree of capitalism? are they gone? can't I make a democratic society and ban slavery but completely capitalistic and get my nice share of energy credit? it's not fair
Click to expand...

Again, ethoi are like the cultural attributes of a society and do not imply any sort of economic system. You can play as an authoritarian or egalitarian capitalistic empire. Though if you choose authoritarian as one of your ethoi and then ban slavery, you're kind of shooting yourself in the foot.

tanny said:
now what about combat update? in heart of iron we're needed to split our army while in this game we merge into single killer fleet
Click to expand...
I agree. Combat does need to be worked on a bit, but this is just the first dev diary of the patch so lets see if they touch on that in the future diaries.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom
Back