• 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:
So I'm guessing this finally spells an end to the weird communism/capitalism discussions.

You can have a communist egalitarian utopia and a neo-feudal ultra capitalist stratocracy, or vice versa. This makes much more sense.

I just wonder where mods like AlphaMod will put the commercial buildings now, since there is no longer a specific ethos for it.
 
  • 6
Reactions:
They're gone. I'm not ruling out that they might return, but only if we have mechanics to actually support them.
I personally really hope they make a return. It would be hard figuring out how an Individualist/Authoritarian empire is supposed to work, though. I don't think there's any government type/ideology that fits perfectly but I think the closest would be a capitalist dictatorship where the richest can do whatever they want as long as they pay for it. Other possible interpretations include a constitutional monarchy where the ruler is more of an arbiter between various interest groups, or some kind of feudal state or noble republic which places a strong emphasis on the rights of the individual provinces.
 
  • 5
Reactions:
"Born Equal"
Does this mean that, via policy, we can put a cast system of sorts?
More granular management of different species was already confirmed IIRC- i.e., auto-enslaving certain species and such.

(It might have to do with genetic engineering though- maybe disallowing enhanced leaders?)
 
  • 4
Reactions:
Nope. You can either make an intensely egalitarian society, like a direct (or perhaps moral) democracy, that actually embodies the ideas of everyone getting what they need, OR you can make a stratified society where the majority are provided what they need by an enlightened, empowered few (i.e. an Enlightened Monarchy).

And how being authoritarian hurt the egalitarian point?

They're angry because what's "best" for them is being dictated by an unassailable individual with no accountability. That's not an egalitarian (read as: everyone should be equal) concept. That's benevolent dictatorship, which might be good for the people but which is no means fair or equal.

No duh.

"This government is a pacifistic form of autocracy, where the ruler is viewed as an enlightened protector that always acts in the best interests of the citizenry."

How people will be angry if the description literally says that the rules is viewed as an enlightened protector that always act in the best interest of the citizenry? Or better yet the advanced form: "the ruler is regarded as a benevolent guardian that is striving to protect the citizens from a violent galaxy."

Why the hell egalitarian people will be angry against this??

Are you saying that Egalitarian people will be more happy living under the rule of the Barons of the industry or a religious oligarchy than under the rule of the coolest guy in the universe??

Worst yet, if I choose egalitarian and it works like individualism, I can choose Plutocratic Oligarchy but not Enlightened Monarchy.
 
  • 14
  • 5
Reactions:
A quick question. There's a screenshot showing the attraction to authoritarianism, and the factors contributing and working against it. Are you planning to add numbers to that, so I can tell which are the real driving reasons my pops are becoming authoritarian, and which are only slightly contributing? That would really help if I'm trying to counteract an ethos drift, or if I'm trying to strengthen it.
 
  • 6
Reactions:
poltics of the game are converging to victoria 2 mechanics
now, have economics of the game converged to a mixture of eu4 & vicky 2 mechanics
 
I shall look forward to indoctrinate the galaxy into acting like individuals.

Brian: Look, you've got it all wrong! You don't need to follow me. You don't need to follow anybody! You've got to think for yourselves! You're all individuals!
Crowd: [in unison] Yes! We're all individuals!
Brian: You're all different!
Crowd: [in unison] Yes, we are all different!
Man in crowd: I'm not...
Crowd: Shhh!
 
  • 10
  • 3
Reactions:
This seems like it has the potential to really add a lot to empire management and dealing with diverse pops, so I'm happy! I don't like that pops can't be fanatical though...dealing with zealots (of any cause, not just religion) who refuse to make any sort of compromises is a part of political reality. Not everyone is a moderate.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
And how being authoritarian hurt the egalitarian point?
This is pretty simple.

In the game, "Egalitarian" = "Everyone has the same freedoms and opportunities". This favours democracies, because democracies give everyone a say.

Meanwhile, "Authoritarian" = "Different people have different rights that can be dictated to them". This favours autocratic governments, because a few can dictate to the many.

Hence, Egalitarian POPs will not like being dictated to, even if the dictator has their best interests at heart.

"This government is a pacifistic form of autocracy, where the ruler is viewed as an enlightened protector that always acts in the best interests of the citizenry."

How people will be angry if the description literally says that the rules is viewed as an enlightened protector that always act in the best interest of the citizenry?
Because it is entirely possible to believe that a dictator is a bad thing even if they have your best interests in mind.

Or better yet the advanced form: "the ruler is regarded as a benevolent guardian that is striving to protect the citizens from a violent galaxy."

Why the hell egalitarian people will be angry against this??
Because they are being dictated to, which is the opposite of equality.

Are you saying that Egalitarian people will be more happy living under the rule of the Barons of the industry or a religious oligarchy than under the rule of the coolest guy in the universe??

Worst yet, if I choose egalitarian and it works like individualism, I can choose Plutocratic Oligarchy but not Enlightened Monarchy.
Plutocratic Oligarchy offers more potential equality of expression and individuality than Enlightened Monarchy- everyone has the opportunity to become part of the ruling caste (through the accumulation of wealth), whereas an Enlightened Monarchy does not provide that same freedom.
 
  • 11
Reactions:
Fighting more wars lead to more militarist pops seems to be a bit too simplified. Historically having wars ravaging your home make people less warlike (e.g. post WW1 France), while losing a war may overcome this effect and make people more militaristic (post WW1 Germany).
 
  • 12
Reactions:
Really psyched about the new patch and the mysterious DLC lurking behind it. Can't wait to see political parties and what not emerge, will make writing AAR's a bit easier too.

I was abit confused by the happiness modifier for the factions but I'd imagine that'll make sense once I'm playing.
 
Plutocratic Oligarchy offers more potential equality of expression and individuality than Enlightened Monarchy- everyone has the opportunity to become part of the ruling caste (through the accumulation of wealth), whereas an Enlightened Monarchy does not provide that same freedom.

Also I wouldn't be surprised if there are factions who want the government to change to a democracy/autocracy
 
  • 2
Reactions:
while pops living around non-enslaved aliens become more xenophilic (and pops living around enslaved aliens more xenophobic)

This in particular piqued my interest, because I honestly think this is a huge simplification and maybe even plain wrong.

Xenophilia should increase in pops living around like-minded aliens. Like-minded means more and better contacts. An enslaved pop, f.ex., is IMO more likely to see an enslaved alien as a potential ally. A Spiritualist pop who finds himself next to a Materialist alien could very well slip into Xenophobia. If the alien is enslaved, well, that might actually appease the free pop since it's a clear indication the state agrees that the xeno is wrong.
 
  • 8
Reactions:
Brian: Look, you've got it all wrong! You don't need to follow me. You don't need to follow anybody! You've got to think for yourselves! You're all individuals!
Crowd: [in unison] Yes! We're all individuals!
Brian: You're all different!
Crowd: [in unison] Yes, we are all different!
Man in crowd: I'm not...
Crowd: Shhh!
In addition to this being one of my favorite movie quotes of all times (next to "what have the romans ever done for us") I am also immensely pleased that the wiki article for individualism has this picture in it.
220px-Flock_of_sheep.jpg

Rock on, Wikiquote. Rock on.
 
  • 6
Reactions:
lol, this perfectly sums up the human condition since the dawn of time :D

"facts" only matter if you decide for yourself that they matter, same goes for "perception".

the hole debate whether it is a pitchfork or a trident is completly irrelevant. it is obvious what the game think it is and that is all that matters. you have the effects of the ethic and the governments it allows you to choose. everything else should be part of an academic debate somewhere else in this forum or the internet in my opinion.

(edit: i mostly meant the debate about egalitarian and authoritarian :) )

This person has it right. There's no way Stellaris, a game that aims to represent sci-fi stereotypical alien societies is going to be accurate to current political science. I'm more interested in how the change affects the game. The name is functional in the context of the game, the same way the fleet movements over the map and in systems are functional even though they have little to do with real life physics. Additionally terms only have relevance for facilitating communication, calling the ethos X or Y has literally the same effect on the game, just makes it harder to intuit what the term is supposed to represent. I'd much rather hear how the change alters ethos bonuses and ethos drift in the future.
 
  • 6
Reactions:
Also I wouldn't be surprised if there are factions who want the government to change to a democracy/autocracy
This too, yeah.

Like, no big surprise that if you have an Egalitarian population, they're going to be unhappy under a dictatorship and want it to Not Be A Dictatorship. Likewise, a population that believes very strongly in Authoritarian power structures is going to be unhappy having their society dictated by the majority.

"Why can't I be a Cool Guy Dictator and have all the people that hate dictatorships love me?!?!?" is a hilariously unobservant position to take on this.
 
  • 4
Reactions:
I personally am very very happy with these changes:

Ethics divergence/factions - Essentially this means the ethics of the empire are shaped by the way it acts, not the way it is 'in theory'. A welcome change and it means there is a far more complex way of interacting with different views within the empire. There is also no reason why any ethic would become less so, even though the conditions are the same.

Egalitarian/authoritarian - While I see a few people raging about this, it makes absolute sense. Libertarian and Socialist societies have the same goal, but differ on how to achieve that goal, while coincidently calling the other side authoritarian. I do think 'hierarchical' is a better term than authoritarian, because the pops themselves are not authoritarian it seems, but simply believe in a hierarchal order, which allows authoritarianism. Overall, a welcome change.

Single pop Ethics - While at first I wasn't sure, I actually really like the idea now that I think about it. It means even with a unified ethical empire, different pops will have different views on which parts are more important. So even in the best case in a pacifist xenophilic empire, lets say half of your are pacifist and the oether half are xenophilic, you have to act both pacifist and xenophilic to really satisfy everyone, rather than do a half-job and make everyone just neutral. This fits in well with the faction system as well.
 
  • 14
Reactions:
So I'm guessing this finally spells an end to the weird communism/capitalism discussions.

You can have a communist egalitarian utopia and a neo-feudal ultra capitalist stratocracy, or vice versa. This makes much more sense.

I just wonder where mods like AlphaMod will put the commercial buildings now, since there is no longer a specific ethos for it.

Yeah, instead we have discussion on how egalitarian means socialism which means authoritarian.

...Seriously what the, do people outside America consider socialism to be form of totalitarianism? I thought that Americans keep getting it wrong because they have hate for communism and confuse socialism and communism together, meanwhile rest of the world is pretty "Eh, Nordic countries seem to enjoy it" about it.
 
  • 15
Reactions:
Status
Not open for further replies.