• 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:
You're actually stumped? Industrialism, easily. Not to get too real-world political, but there are plenty of examples of opponents of environmentalism on this planet right now.

Saying that "Industrialism" is "easily" opposed to "Ecologism" is really as ridiculous as the whole Egalitarianism vs. Authoritarianism axis.

So I guess it'd fit right in.

On a more serious note, though, the opposite of Industrialism isn't Ecologism. Opposing Ecologism would mean actively and purposfully destroying eco-systems, or be without any regard for nature. Industrialism is an engine of industrialization, which historically has had a regrettable impact on nature, but you'd be hard-pressed to find ecologists that actually oppose industrialization on the sole basis that it's industry.

That's why I'm a bit stumped. I can find very vague concepts that could conflict (much like how someone that's politically illiterate may misconstrue egalitarianism and authoritarianism as opposites) but not a clear one that necessarily does by virtue of the concept itself.

- To what extent is the concept already contained in Spiritualism vs. Materialism?
Conceptually, not at all. Materialism in the context of Stellaris presents Materialism (somewhat ridiculously) as a fact-based ethos, vs. faith-based ones. While materialists ideologies have historically been ecologically devastating humanitarian disasters, treating both people and nature as material resources, that's not the "materialism" presented in Stellaris.

- What would be the mechanical effects, especially of Environmentalism? Planetary environments in Stellaris are currently pretty static, except for blocker removal and terraforming. The assumption seems to be that your civilization is sustainable by default. So what concrete game benefit would Environmentalists bring? At face value, it seems like they'd just get upset by clearing blockers and be really annoying.

This I think is pretty interesting, though, because it's not necessarily very obvious. Ecologism could arguably give various bonuses in terms of life expectancy and happiness, but penalties to food production, mineral production, and terraforming. It's opposite could give bonuses to migration, production, terraforming, but gain penalties in terms of life expectancy, happiness, and habitability.

Just spitballing.
 
  • 3
  • 2
Reactions:
A lot of talk about politics but I seem to have missed any conversation about the influence bonus listed near the factions on the screen. I'm more than a little thrilled there is a mechanic that allows us more control over our influence gain. It looked like a happy faction would just provide .5 per period more on this early example. I have a bit of feedback already. The amount should scale based on the number of populations in the faction. Otherwise it would create a silly situation where you make a faction with 1 pop happy to get the same amount of influence as making a faction with 20 pops happy.
 
This I think is pretty interesting, though, because it's not necessarily very obvious. Ecologism could arguably give various bonuses in terms of life expectancy and happiness, but penalties to food production, mineral production, and terraforming. It's opposite could give bonuses to migration, production, terraforming, but gain penalties in terms of life expectancy, happiness, and habitability.

That's interesting. Its more of like a coexistence with nature vs ownership of the planet. Something like "we need to respect and live with the natural world" vs "the natural world is there to serve us"
 
  • 2
Reactions:
That's interesting. Its more of like a coexistence with nature vs ownership of the planet. Something like "we need to respect and live with the natural world" vs "the natural world is there to serve us"

That's what I was thinking, yes. In the context of galactic colonization, a "locust-ethos" developing could make perfect sense, but to my knowledge - and I could very well be wrong in this - no-one has ever tried to formulate or conceptualize one, theoretical or otherwise, so I still don't know what would stand in opposition of ecologism. Even to the most immoral of industrialists, they're not really acting against nature on purpose, but out of greed or ignorance.

But when you can terraform planets and colonize new ones, one can very easily becomes much like the next. Such as ethos might be called foolish in the long run, but as much as I hate to say it, it's not impossible to understand such a point of view. What does Earth matter in the grand scheme of things, if we can just colonize 5 planets just like it, with their own biospheres modified to suit us? Can it's intrinsic value truly compete with the ease of resource extraction and increase in production awarded by a complete disregard for the future of the planet itself?

Bonus points if there's events where you might actually have to leave planets due to it's biosphere becoming inhospitable, or where terraforming further is no longer possible (after it's already switched towards desert, tundra, or ocean), or where the magnetic field gets weaker because of rampant resource extraction.
 
  • 2
Reactions:
Buddy, I do not have the slighted interest in how you enjoy your game. Be space-Taliban or space-Hitler or space-Stalin, whatever floats your boat. But you should know where this ends and pick some less offensive user-name.

While I realized that my name might not have been appropriate soon after I created it, so I googled how to change it and it said that I can't so I would thought that I would just be stuck with it until now

PS I don't know if you did this on purpose but you name is moldy penny in German just FYI:p
 
While I realized that my name might not have been appropriate soon after I created it, so I googled how to change it and it said that I can't so I would thought that I would just be stuck with it until now

PS I don't know if you did this on purpose but you name is moldy penny in German just FYI:p

Google the battle of Gettysburg, Alexander Schimmelfennig... he somewhere lost a 'p' on the way across the ocean. :D

And thank you for your effort, appreciated. :cool:
 
  • 1
Reactions:
That's what I was thinking, yes. In the context of galactic colonization, a "locust-ethos" developing could make perfect sense, but to my knowledge - and I could very well be wrong in this - no-one has ever tried to formulate or conceptualize one, theoretical or otherwise, so I still don't know what would stand in opposition of ecologism. Even to the most immoral of industrialists, they're not really acting against nature on purpose, but out of greed or ignorance.

Wasn't there a race in Sword of the Stars which were always at war and their home planets would degrade over time? I think Endless Space did this too.

This mean they were forced to keep going on and conquering or they'd eventually die out. It led to some interesting gameplay.
 
Excited by the prospect of a political revolution from within turning a democracy into an authoritarian empire etc.

I wonder... can Synth pops be spiritual?
 
There should be a difference between how factions function in democratic and authoritarian systems. Democracies are likely to have a large variety of factions whereas authoritarian societies have it in their interest to limit the ability of their people to group into factions that could cause trouble for the ruling elite. Factions in an authoritarian systems ought to be less likely to form due to government limitations but more willing to push for change once they gain the traction neccesary. Of course I understand such factions could be meant to exist informally but still when public gatherings and freedom of speech are encouraged this tends to result to way more people willing to group for political purposes, than if there's a threat of repression.

Factions in authoritarian empires should totally be run like aristocratic houses of the court.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Factions in authoritarian empires should totally be run like aristocratic houses of the court.

Wouldn't that be more dictacted by if you were a monarchy? A Star Empire or Trancesndant Empire may not have aristocratic houses, but other factions. I think they were hinting that different governments will indeed have different types of factions.

Megacorporation oligarchies would probably have different corporations. Some would be technology companies, some might be military etc. Wow this could be really fun and add a lot of flavour.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
So I then wonder, would they keep the anti-Ai stance of spiritualist ethos as it stands now?
even if they end up overlooking this in 1.5 I imagine the new Ethics model would make it a lot easier to patch in a fix, since ethic attraction is based on the pop's personal conditions and they can easily add in spiritualist=no if has trait robotic or whatever the verbiage is.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.