• 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:
Yeah, I agree with this... mostly. There is one place where paradox can place alien races that are significantly and fundamentally different from ourselves... The end game crisis. The normal rules don't apply to them!

I've never gotten the Prethoryn Swarm before, but aren't they basically that kind of literal hive mind race that people say they want to see in Stellaris?
Funny you should ask.

Thematically? Something like that, yes.

Mechanically? The Prethoryn introduce an event where you can capture and "domesticate" one of their fleet-queens. This gives you a special high-tier Admiral, a "fleet-mind".

Which is entirely eligible to be democratically elected.
 
  • 2
Reactions:
In my recent campaign I was attacked by two empires very early on and I ended up leaving some colonies I set up under developed for a long time because literally every single mineral I had was going to try ensure I even survived. I think they must have had a pop or two unemployed for about 20 years or so on those worlds. It would have been fitting if they'd ended up as authoritarian spiritualists or something - an lost generation from a long and bitter war, alienated, angry and bitter and set to cause problems for the empire for decades to come.

I'd keep it, it's a fun bit of flavour even unemployment doesn't (currently) come up in normal gameplay very often.

Agreed. "Blames regime for things being terrible" isn't a bad mechanic.
 
  • 11
Reactions:
Agreed. "Blames regime for things being terrible" isn't a bad mechanic.

There should be a mechanic for pops or factions to, *under certain circumstances only*, increase the attraction of their ethoses (ethi)?

Because you can talk about whether unemployment leads to authoritarianism, egalitarians or whatever but ultimately a big part of what makes big political movements get power - be they far right nationalist or pro-democracy movements - is people who believe passionately (almost... fanatically, you might say) in them going out and trying to convince other people.
 
The new ethic systems seems to be a huge improvement compared to the actual one, I really like it.

I also have a question: it will be possible to keep an autocratic society without enslaving aliens but simply assimilating them in the empire dominant culture?
 
Last edited:
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
I guess they would be at the middle of the scale? It's not like you have to be egalitarian to pick a democratic government.

are you forbidden from picking democratic governments as authoritarian still? Or have restrictions been moved to only applying to fanatics?
 
  • 2
Reactions:
we might just come up with something yes otherwise what is the point about us endlessly say how we what thing different?
>> "We've thought about this a bunch and decided this ultimately better serves the game. The old way was clunky and didn't really work for X, Y, and Z reasons."
>> "Ignore those reasons and add it back in anyways, we'll come up with something it can do!"

As if the game devs don't have a better grasp of how their game is meant to fit together than we do, right?
 
There should be a mechanic for pops or factions to, *under certain circumstances only*, increase the attraction of their ethoses (ethi)?

Because you can talk about whether unemployment leads to authoritarianism, egalitarians or whatever but ultimately a big part of what makes big political movements get power - be they far right nationalist or pro-democracy movements - is people who believe passionately (almost... fanatically, you might say) in them going out and trying to convince other people.

Events pushing some pops in certain directions can also be added (and probably will be) , doesn't stop lack of satisfaction with the way things are going turning to hate against whoever is in control from being a believable mechanic.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
What will happen to the difference in POP-Yields?
A fanatic Materialist would currently yield +15% Science while a "normal" Materialist would yield +5%.
As the fanatic ethics will disappear in POPs is there a change in the yields as well? Like "Meet-in-the-middle" with +10% ?
 
Isn't there a really popular mod that adds a bunch of new ethics and governments? Unless Wiz plans to shut down the hooks for modding that, this is just a lot of pissing in the wind. IMHO.
What are you even trying to say? Modders did something so paradox shouldn't? nay as well shiut down development with the thinking. The vast majority of people don't use mods, they released stats for CK2 awhile ago and it was like 10% of players. Besides if it's the ethics and governments rebalance mod you are talking they renamed it to authoritarian and something else ages ago anyway.
 
  • 4
Reactions:
Ooooh I love everything! There's some things I'm confused about such as: will you shift the "flavour" of collectivist hive-type of empires into a trait or some kind of technology? I'm not sure either of the reworked ethics fit a species of space bees now.

Also! A modding question!

  • For example (...) pops living around non-enslaved aliens become more xenophilic (and pops living around enslaved aliens more xenophobic).
I have vested interest in this. I've been looking into making specific pops influence adjacent/same planet pops but it seems like those mechanics are hardcoded into xenophila/phobia and limited to happiness effects. So I was wondering if there's a way this could be opened up to modders? So that for example certain pops could affect the growth rate/production output/other attributes of adjacent pops?
 
I consider Egalitarian to be a perfectly valid antithesis to Authoritarian. A society where most people are at the whim of a ruling elite is not an egalitarian society no matter how well the masses are treated. That doesn't mean an authoritarian society can't have egalitarian elements (for example, a high degree of meritocracy in its bureaucracy) but that's true for all the ethics... even the most pacifist society will have militaristic elements, and I doubt religion and spirituality is completely gone even in the most materialist empires.

All that aside... only polsci freshmen and internet charts believe that libertarianism is some kind of antithesis to authoritarianism. Seriously.

The problem with this system is that it suggest that Authoritarian society is not equal based on some social aspects. But that if it isn't equal based on physiology? Authoritarian is all about oppression, but that if there is no oppression - only roles defined by physiology? And the person of "ruler" defined by biology. It's not only about ants and such - the whole lot of pack animals have predefined roles, some of them being very grim ones. But are they "oppressed" by pack leader? Or it's a necessity?
 
  • 6
  • 2
Reactions:
>> "We've thought about this a bunch and decided this ultimately better serves the game. The old way was clunky and didn't really work for X, Y, and Z reasons."
>> "Ignore those reasons and add it back in anyways, we'll come up with something it can do!"

As if the game devs don't have a better grasp of how their game is meant to fit together than we do, right?
people can think of diferent thing so mabey we can think up something that will work.
it is better to try and fail than not try at all.
 
The problem with this system is that it suggest that Authoritarian society is not equal based on some social aspects. But that if it isn't equal based on physiology? Authoritarian is all about oppression, but that if there is no oppression - only roles defined by physiology? And the person of "ruler" defined by biology. It's not only about ants and such - the whole lot of pack animals have predefined roles, some of them being very grim ones. But are they "oppressed" by pack leader? Or it's a necessity?

Authoritarianism does not necessitate oppression. You're free to ban slavery and roleplay a benevolent autocrat, but it doesn't make your society in any way equal. As for things like hive minds, as I said, they can't really be done well under the current ethics system period, this does not change that.
 
  • 34
  • 4
  • 3
Reactions:
Very promising, and will make for far more interesting gameplay. As others have said, these are the kind of features we should have in a grand strategy game :) .

Agreed. "Blames regime for things being terrible" isn't a bad mechanic.
Watch out for the populist Make [#Empire_Name] Great Again faction o_O .
 
  • 3
Reactions:
The problem with this system is that it suggest that Authoritarian society is not equal based on some social aspects. But that if it isn't equal based on physiology? Authoritarian is all about oppression, but that if there is no oppression - only roles defined by physiology? And the person of "ruler" defined by biology. It's not only about ants and such - the whole lot of pack animals have predefined roles, some of them being very grim ones. But are they "oppressed" by pack leader? Or it's a necessity?

What you're describing is actually authoritarianism. It doesn't necessarily mean oppression. The "stronger" ones are likely to become "slaves" with no authority over others, but they won't actually be angry about this if they're authoritian themselves.
 
  • 5
Reactions:
As far as I can see, the axis (and the old Individualist/Collectivist one) is about the answer to a single question: "do all individuals have a right to self-determination?" For the Stellaris "authoritarian", it's "no," for the Stellaris "egalitarian" it's "yes". Perhaps there could be better names for the two sides of the axis, but the intention is pretty clear.

So on the one hand, a benevolently authoritarian nation, like an enlightened monarchy, treats its people wonderfully, but the Mind Control Laser and Ministry of Benevolence are still options. They still clearly believe permitting people their own choices and preserving a peaceful society are mutually exclusive goals. That's why, in Stellaris' terms, "egalitarian" doesn't apply.

And a Despotic Hegemony -- which can be interpreted as an idealized Soviet Union, minus the nepotism and corruption -- may permit the most talented individual to be selected as leader. But it won't be because of their choices, at least not directly. It will be because the whims of the Hegemony determined this path for them, according to the Hegemony's own measures and purposes.

In contrast, a non-xenophobic, egalitarian direct democracy cannot enslave its pops simply because 51% are cool with it. This implies a certain respect for individual rights, protected from the whims of the majority, being baked into a society with egalitarian ethos, even in direct democracies. Noting that in the above situation, said democracy might eventually end up losing its egalitarianism to become neutral on the scale or picking up xenophobia anyways. How quickly that happens sounds like another dev diary's topic.
 
  • 12
Reactions:
Authoritarianism does not necessitate oppression. You're free to ban slavery and roleplay a benevolent autocrat, but it doesn't make your society in any way equal. As for things like hive minds, as I said, they can't really be done well under the current ethics system period, this does not change that.
Banning slavery means just handicapping yourself for a RP while Authoritarian\Collectivist being all about slavery means they are all about oppression. Playing them without it is rather meaningless.
In short, game have no merits for playing a "benevolent autocrat" and it automatically makes Autocratic ethos the ethos of slave-drivers and purgers.
 
  • 13
  • 1
Reactions:
Status
Not open for further replies.