• 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:
while pops living around non-enslaved aliens become more xenophilic (and pops living around enslaved aliens more xenophobic).
Wait, does this mean that having alien pops next to each other increases the percentage of xenophilia in the empire? I'm not sure that I like that, it means that I'll probably end up segregating my planets to better promote ethos I actually care about. Hard to judge without playing if it's worth it, but would you consider making this just discourage xenophobia instead?
 
I take issue with this. Let me explain before I get downvoted! :p

Collectivism is really domestic policy. I.e. it doesn't indicate any form of opinion with regards to other races.

So whether or not you choose to bring other races into the collective is determined by the xenophile/xenophobe axis. Xenophile collectivists consider themselves part of a pan-racial collective, while xenophobe collectivists consider themselves part of a mono-racial collective.

Your fanatical xenophile collectivist regime is internationalist communism, while your fanatical xenophobe collectivist regime is fascism. Communists and fascists both have a history of forcing their own people to work (for not conforming in one way or another), so this would explain why "collectivists" accept slavery within the nation.

Meanwhile, your xenophile individualist government is basically standard liberal centrist politics as we know them today (free trade, free movement, human rights), while your xenophobic individualists are the right-wing isolationist liberals/libertarians (national rights which are not extended to non-citizens).

So I don't think the change makes things any clearer, and I think we're now going to end up with xenophobic egalitarian societies, which don't make much sense. And your super-capitalist trade federation is going to be left having to pick between egalitarian and authoritarian, which makes no sense.

If events don't quite fit, perhaps the solution is simply to rework them to include appropriate xenophile/xenophobe conditions.
 
Last edited:
  • 3
  • 2
Reactions:
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.

So it's simple a arbitrary definition you made for the game? Because this everyone has the same freedoms is contradicted by the game itself:

Military Republic
"This government is a militaristic form of democracy, where full citizenship can only be gained through military service. The voting franchise is limited to full citizens, and they are the only ones allowed to hold public offices."

Non-military citzens don't have the same rights but it's still a 'democracy'. "ohh, but theoretically everyone can enter the military" and theoretically everyone can be party of a Oligarchy too. They have different rights that can be dictated to them.

The same thing for Theocratic Republic.

"This government is a spiritualistic form of democracy, where a religious council supervises the democratic process and serves in an advisory role."

The regilious council have privilegies that the other Pops don't. They have different rights that can be dictated to them.

Because it is entirely possible to believe that a dictator is a bad thing even if they have your best interests in mind.

And it's possible to believe that it's good, why not both ways? They are aliens!


Because they are being dictated to, which is the opposite of equality.

Equality of WHAT? You are just using political equality, and if there is no political equality, there is no equality at all.

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.

Oh, so now it's just equality of oportunity? So it's okay for a Elective Monarchy? Everyone can become a king. What problem will you find in this system for egalitarians now?

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.


Changing to hierarchical will fix most of the issues.
 
  • 6
  • 3
Reactions:
These terms are all essentially contested there is NO right or wrong answer as to what they mean. That is why you are all utterly convinced you are right.

With the exception of whoever said European Socialism is the same as American Liberalism. You sir, are wrong.

But if you get the dictionary, the antonyms of Egalitarian is NOT authoritarian, it is elitist, hierarchicall, etc.... If Authoritarian is not oposed in any way to egalitarian, why it is right to use them in the game this way??
 
  • 1
Reactions:
These changes sound really cool! It's definitely an improvement over what's in the game now.

Whether it's fun in practice is yet to be determined, I'm optimistic.
 
They're not the same thing. Liberalism (assuming the actual definition, not one commonly used in america) is the opposite of totalitarianism. Egalitarianism is the opposite of authoritarianism. As mentioned, you can have a perfectly freedom-loving authoritarian regime.

I'm sorry, but this is simply not true.

Liberalism is individualism (freedom from interference).

Totalitarianism is the opposite of liberalism/individualism - it is where people are forced to conform (either by an autocrat or the majority).

Liberalism gives the individual freedom to rule his or her own life, while authoritarianism tells them what to do. John Stuart Mill is considered one of the central figures in liberalism, and he would have agreed with this.

Authoritarianism is just a less extreme form of totalitarianism. I'm not making this up.

Now egalitarianism has multiple definitions. Perhaps the purest is simply "equality", which if you take it to its extreme means "sameness". In other words, extreme forms of egalitarianism indicate hive minds and equal distribution of wealth. The opposite of egalitarian is therefore hierarchy.

So how does this make sense? Liberalism/authoritarianism is about method, while hierarchy/egalitarianism is about desired ends.

Hierarchical liberty is right-wing anarcho-capitalism. Egalitarian liberty is left-wing anarchism. Hierarchical authoritarianism is monarchy/feudalism. Egalitarian authoritarianism is socialism/communism.

Changing to hierarchical will fix most of the issues.

It would certainly be a lot better than authoritarian. Not perfect given the events, but at least it becomes a more accurate dichotomy.

Ideally individualist/liberal vs authoritarian will be added in later.
 
Last edited:
  • 5
  • 3
Reactions:
So are they going to be any pro-army or pro-navy factions in the game?
 
  • 3
Reactions:
Looks like a great system. I mean, I can't say too much about it before playing, since it's such a big change, but just from this much I know it's going to be a huge step up even if I'd not be at all surprised if there's wrinkles to be ironed out in the specifics. And it definitely seems like the foundation of a great political system. I am a bit curious how the degree of attraction is calculated based on state ethics - is it based on point cost? Set per ethic? It matters for modding.

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.
Consider a perfectly egalitarian society where all people have equal rights in all ways and (for the purpose of argument) equal wealth. Let's say they're governed by a direct democracy, where all laws are decided by majority. Or perhaps decisions are made by a rotating council of ordinary folks selected by lottery, which has been experimented with in China. Now, suppose those egalitarian mechanisms of government decide that all people must work, regardless of their inclination, for the good of the state an according to very specific state laws. Perhaps the trains run on time, perhaps people of all races enjoy equitable relations in their state-mandated work camps, and when it's their time to decide, they vote to maintain the heavily regimented lifestyle for themselves and their compatrons. True, few humans would vote for such a thing. But nonetheless, it is both entirely egalitarian and entirely authoritarian.

Also, I'm curious how one can define libertarian and authoritarian that they aren't diametrically opposed. It would be an unconventional way indeed, I feel.

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.
Oppression is a vague word, but authoritarianism does inherently imply control, which is an inherently (and definitionally, according to google) oppressive thing.
 
  • 2
Reactions:
i find this interesting...
and honestly i found the whole Collectivist/Individualist ethos having to do with slavery weird and offf... simply because i have never seen pre civil war, slave owning United States as Collectivist for one... or for two Imperial Germany as collectivist either, or old prerevolutionary France. These Ethics wouldn't really compensate for a hive mind race that you can't create with current mechanics either...
however i do find it interesting.
 
THIS IS AWESOME
THank you

political changes look fantastic and will make the game leaps more fun!

will factions be able to change the ruling ethics/species/etc of the nation?

also the new icons are cool.
 
i find this interesting...
and honestly i found the whole Collectivist/Individualist ethos having to do with slavery weird and offf... simply because i have never seen pre civil war, slave owning United States as Collectivist for one... or for two Imperial Germany as collectivist either, or old prerevolutionary France.

Hang on. Collectivist increases slave tolerance overall. Xenophobic increases alien slave tolerance.

You should note that slave-owning United States only enslaved "foreigners" ("aliens").

Hence, it would be xenophobic individualist. On the other hand, internationalist communist regimes have often enslaved members of their own society (for not being on-board with communism), and so it would be xenophile collectivist with slaves being the people sent to work camps. Meanwhile, Nazi Germany sent dissidents AND foreigners to work camps, hence it was xenophobic collectivist. And the societies which don't do slavery at all? Xenophile individualists, i.e. liberal democracies. I don't understand the hate for the current system, as it really seems quite perfect to me. Summary:

Xenophobic individualist = 18th century United States
Xenophobic collectivist = Nazi Germany
Xenophile individualist = modern Germany/Canada
Xenophile collectivist = communist regimes

For historical monarchist societies, you're looking at pure collectivism i.e. feudalism. Remember that historical conservatism was largely based around communitarianism, where everyone had their place and worked together for the good of the whole. If you want to draw a line between monarchies and communists/fascists, you have to then add in spiritualist for monarchies and materialist for the modern government types.

So...

Xenophobic collectivist = Nazi Germany (also materialist)
Spiritualist collectivist = Feudal kingdom
 
Last edited:
  • 1
Reactions:
But... the ethic change is in the free update. What if the DLC is about something completely stupid, like adding China as a fallen empire that covers half the galaxy, but has no mechanics, can't be interacted with, and won't be updated or improved on ever? Also every single Chinese ship one shots everything else.
IO Think the DLC will be the Aztecs invading the galaxy.
 
I'm sorry, but this is simply not true.

Liberalism is individualism (freedom from interference).

Totalitarianism is the opposite of liberalism/individualism - it is where people are forced to conform (either by an autocrat or the majority).

Liberalism gives the individual freedom to rule his or her own life, while authoritarianism tells them what to do. John Stuart Mill is considered one of the central figures in liberalism, and he would have agreed with this.

Authoritarianism is just a less extreme form of totalitarianism. I'm not making this up.

Now egalitarianism has multiple definitions. Perhaps the purest is simply "equality", which if you take it to its extreme means "sameness". In other words, extreme forms of egalitarianism indicate hive minds and equal distribution of wealth. The opposite of egalitarian is therefore hierarchy.

So how does this make sense? Liberalism/authoritarianism is about method, while hierarchy/egalitarianism is about desired ends.

Hierarchical liberty is right-wing anarcho-capitalism. Egalitarian liberty is left-wing anarchism. Hierarchical authoritarianism is monarchy/feudalism. Egalitarian authoritarianism is socialism/communism.

Your link doesn't really support your assertion unless you cherry pick exactly what you want to hear from one part of the article dealing with one particular conception. Which you might want to do but I am not going to. Your link talks about how authoritarianism limits political freedoms, IE. power is largely centralised strongly under a single individual, or a select ruling class. Authoritarianism is where the heads of state wield supreme power. Benevolent dictatorships are authoritarian, but not necessarily overly limiting on social or economic freedoms. Totalitarianism is, if we direct ourselves to the wikipedia article on totalitarianism, "Totalitarianism is a political system in which the state recognizes no limits to its authority and strives to regulate every aspect of public and private life wherever feasible". That "and" is an important distinction which is also elaborated on in that very article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total...etween_authoritarian_and_totalitarian_regimes

(just as a counter to the section of article you posted)
 
Last edited:
  • 2
  • 1
Reactions:
Overall, this sounds great! However, I`m a little concerned about the "being next to enslaved aliens is going to make pops more xenophobic". Does that mean the combination of authoritatian and xenophile is less viable than other ethics combinations due to them being inherently opposed apparently?

My main species is decadent authoritarian (as of yet collectivist) xenophiles, so they need servants/slaves to feel content, but they also make them xenophobe?
 
Could the semantics debate go to another thread or OT or something? I keep getting excited that something game related might have happened.
Overall, this sounds great! However, I`m a little concerned about the "being next to enslaved aliens is going to make pops more xenophobic". Does that mean the combination of authoritatian and xenophile is less viable than other ethics combinations due to them being inherently opposed apparently?

My main species is decadent authoritarian (as of yet collectivist) xenophiles, so they need servants/slaves to feel content, but they also make them xenophobe?

I assume it would still be a small factor, not 100% they'll be xenophobes in ten years no doubt. Like especially if the empire is xenophile, so the push to xenophile factor will be there too to counter it out?
 
I assume it would still be a small factor, not 100% they'll be xenophobes in ten years no doubt. Like especially if the empire is xenophile, so the push to xenophile factor will be there too to counter it out?
I very much hope so! I`m still a little concerned, though. It simply doesn`t make sense for decadents to grow to hate the guys they need to lead comfortable lives.

Authoritarian at its core being contradictory to xenophile by their nature is not that great an idea, since it does make that one ethics combination less viable.
 
Your link doesn't really support your assertion unless you cherry pick exactly what you want to hear from one part of the article dealing with one particular conception. Which you might want to do but I am not going to. Your link talks about how authoritarianism limits political freedoms, IE. power is largely centralised strongly under a single individual, or a select ruling class. Authoritarianism is where the heads of state weild supreme power. Benevolent dictatorships are authoritarian, but not necessarily overly limiting on social or economic freedoms. Totalitarianism is, if we direct ourselves to the wikipedia article on totalitarianism, "Totalitarianism is a political system in which the state recognizes no limits to its authority and strives to regulate every aspect of public and private life wherever feasible". That "and" is an important distinction which is also elaborated on in that very article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total...etween_authoritarian_and_totalitarian_regimes

(just as a counter to the section of article you posted)

In practice, authoritarianism is a light form of totalitarianism.

It's difficult to draw the line between political freedoms and social freedoms, particularly when it comes to freedom of expression. And the lack of political freedom means that authoritarian regimes often do not care about the wishes of their people (why would they?).

If you look at all of the examples of authoritarian regimes, social freedoms were truly scarce.

The important thing to note here is that we're looking at absolutes in order to form a dichotomy, so the opposite of the state having complete and total control over people's lives (totalitarianism) is the state having no control over people's lives (liberalism/individualism). The thing about a benevolent dictator is that if they choose to be highly liberal, they're not really politically involved, hence they're not authoritarian, because they rarely stop anyone from doing what they want to. In terms of nations, the USA might be considered a "benevolent dictator" when it comes to NATO, because while they're a hegemon powerful enough to exert strong influence, and wield all political power, they mostly leave countries alone, and let each one govern itself. Now imagine a society like that, and you see what benevolent dictatorship looks like. Can you really say that they are the ones in charge? At it's extreme, it's anarchy.

But this is a highly irregular form of government, I would say. Benevolent dictators don't exist, and if they did, they would likely seek to use their power to intervene in society. "Enlightened monarchy" covers this in Stellaris, and it works because it requires collectivism (intervention in order to "fix" society indicates that there is an established "good" which all must follow - i.e. my people must value health because I think it's in their best interests so I'm banning sugary drinks) and pacifism.
 
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
I very much hope so! I`m still a little concerned, though. It simply doesn`t make sense for decadents to grow to hate the guys they need to lead comfortable lives.

Authoritarian at its core being contradictory to xenophile by their nature is not that great an idea, since it does make that one ethics combination less viable.

Id guess its to represent growing to feeling superior to, the slaves you see every day. rather than growing to hate. And decadents would feel superior. But I'm sure it'll be one factor among many not the all and end all.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.