• 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:
Are you serious in your request for an egalitarian society that can arbitrarily purge some of its members? I know their name is Paradox, but still...

Communism was egalitarian and purged its members.

It was (is) authoritarian egalitarian :p
 
  • 4
  • 4
Reactions:
Communism was egalitarian and purged its members.

It was (is) authoritarian egalitarian :p
It's a pretty shallow conception of egalitarianism that doesn't take into account all the people in the gulag and mass graves.

One is free to name one's purging and enslaving authoritarian regime the "Democratic Free Stars", after all.
 
Communism was egalitarian and purged its members.

It was (is) authoritarian egalitarian :p
No, Communist governments may have called themselves egalitarian but they were simply Authoritarian.
 
  • 3
  • 1
Reactions:
No, Communist governments may have called themselves egalitarian but they were simply Authoritarian.
"Communist" governments don't typically call themselves communist. Things like soviet russia were state socialist and yes, they were authoritarian. The USSR was far from egalitarian even if that was supposably it's final goal.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Exactly, the proposition is nonsensical. You can't play that because it's a logical contradiction.

Equality must mean something different to you than it does to me. Because appropriating the means of production from capitalists and purging them seems like a pretty authoritarian and egalitarian thing to do.
 
  • 3
  • 1
Reactions:
Equality must mean something different to you than it does to me. Because appropriating the means of production from capitalists and purging them seems like a pretty authoritarian and egalitarian thing to do.
Are purposely ignoring Paradox's definition? They mean equal rights and opportunities which means that purging people because they happen to be involved in business isn't very egalitarian.
 
  • 4
Reactions:
C'mon, ladies and gents, we've all been through high school English, yeah? So, y'know... "all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others."

EDIT: Okay, should probably clarify. The above quote is pure Authoritarian by Stellaris definitions. The first part, "all animals are equal", is pretty much annihilated by the second. Nominal egalitarian ain't worth a rat's hide, actions (like executing "enemies of the People" without trials, gulags, y'know) are what matters.
 
  • 3
Reactions:
But it wouldn't be egalitarian, purging people because they have different beliefs is not egalitarian.

Equal means "being the same". Same means "identical, not different". Look these definition up and you'll see what I mean.

Now when we strip "egalitarianism" apart, it becomes "equalism", as in "making people more equal". A fanatical egalitarian therefore wants to make everyone identical and not different.

What does this mean in a political context? Nazis were fanatical egalitarian xenophobes (discriminate based on the outside and the inside), and communists were (are) fanatical egalitarian xenophiles (discriminate based on the inside).

There's is a clear contradiction between letting people choose to be different and unequal of their own accord, and enforcing equality.

Do you see my logic? I think when you say egalitarian, you mean "individualist". Individualism means empowering the individual to govern their own affairs, and this means equality before the law

No, Communist governments may have called themselves egalitarian but they were simply Authoritarian.

Authoritarian is not an end. It is a means to an end.

Communist regimes made everyone equal. They were authoritarians, but also egalitarian.

You're not one of those "communism just hasn't been done right" people are you? Is that why Paradox have made this change? OK, now I'm quite annoyed o_O

I support relatively high taxation and redistribution, but this is authoritarian, because it's essentially forcing other people to give up things they've made for the community. That requires a strong, centralised power in order to collect the revenue. It's an acceptable form of authoritarianism, but it is authoritarianism.
 
  • 9
  • 4
Reactions:
C'mon, ladies and gents, we've all been through high school English, yeah? So, y'know... "all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others."
Of course, Authoritarianism with egalitarian propaganda (I.e Stalinism and Maoism).
 
  • 2
  • 1
Reactions:
Are purposely ignoring Paradox's definition? They mean equal rights and opportunities which means that purging people because they happen to be involved in business isn't very egalitarian.

Paradox's definition is the one which is used to describe existing human politics (like how liberalism often refers to people who are very much not liberal in the USA).

It's not appropriate for an ethics systems which needs to accurately contrast different ideas to allow for different beliefs.
 
  • 3
Reactions:
Equal means "being the same". Same means "identical, not different". Look these definition up and you'll see what I mean.

Now when we strip "egalitarianism" apart, it becomes "equalism", as in "making people more equal". A fanatical egalitarian therefore wants to make everyone identical and not different.
That does not matter, Paradox clearly said that egalitarianism in Stellaris is the support for equal rights and opportunities for everyone. Which is not the same thing as everyone being completely identical and equal.
What does this mean in a political context? Nazis were fanatical egalitarian xenophobes (discriminate based on the outside and the inside), and communists were (are) fanatical egalitarian xenophiles (discriminate based on the inside).

There's is a clear contradiction between letting people choose to be different and unequal of their own accord, and enforcing equality.

Do you see my logic? I think when you say egalitarian, you mean "individualist". Individualism means empowering the individual to govern their own affairs, and this means equality before the law
Which completely ignores Paradox's definition of Egalitarianism, wanting people to be identical is not their egalitarianism.
Authoritarian is not an end. It is a means to an end.
No, Authoritarianism is obedience to a central authority at the expense of personal rights/freedom. So it is more than a means to the ends it is the relationship between the individual and what ever central authority is specified.
Communist regimes made everyone equal. They were authoritarians, but also egalitarian.
They absolutely did not make everyone equal, they had elites who had far more power and wealth then the common people. I would advise that you avoid taking Soviet, Chinese, or North Korean propaganda as fact.
You're not one of those "communism just hasn't been done right" people are you? Is that why Paradox have made this change? OK, now I'm quite annoyed o_O
I am not a Marxist in any form, but that doesn't change the fact that socialist or communist regimes were egalitarian only in propaganda and nowhere else.
 
  • 4
  • 3
Reactions:
Communist regimes made everyone equal. They were authoritarians, but also egalitarian.

Spartanlemur to the rescue! I don't see why everyone else is having so much trouble understanding this.

As someone else brought up earlier the terminology here seems to carry some different meanings/connotations in the U.S than it does in Europe, that's probably more or less the source of our issue here.
 
  • 5
  • 1
Reactions:
No, Authoritarianism is obedience to a central authority at the expense of personal rights/freedom. So it is more than a means to the ends it is the relationship between the individual and what ever central authority is specified.

Yes, but you're missing a word. Let me rephrase your statement: Authoritarianism is obedience to a central authority at the expense of Liberty, not at the expense of equality. Which is exactly why I think it's so strange that Europeans or anybody else would contrast authority with equality instead of liberty like I'm so used to seeing. The more authority a government has over people, the less liberty they have or at least the less secure their liberty is.
 
Last edited:
  • 2
Reactions:
As someone else brought up earlier the terminology here seems to carry some different meanings/connotations in the U.S than it does in Europe, that's probably more or less the source of our issue here.

As an American, my definition of "equal" in the sphere of politics has a single, pretty simple source:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
 
  • 2
Reactions:
Honestly if they just swapped the term authoritarianism with Elitism it would make a lot more sense. Because using authoritarianism there is clearly bringing a completely different axis to mind for a lot of us. And isn't elitism/egalitarianism how it usually goes anyways?
 
  • 4
Reactions:
Hierarchical is a better counterpoint than authoritarian to egalitarian because you can have a system that is both equal in the rights it gives and is authoritarian.

A society that criminalises any deviation from average is both authoritarian and egalitarian.

The flavour text on the image reads as hierarchical not specifically authoritarian as well.


I'm going to miss individualism though I can understand the decision from a mechanical standpoint, flavour wise it was my favourite ethos.

How am I going to create anarchist and near anarchist states now?
 
Last edited:
  • 2
Reactions:
Honestly if they just swapped the term authoritarianism with Elitism it would make a lot more sense. Because using authoritarianism there is clearly bringing a completely different axis to mind for a lot of us. And isn't elitism/egalitarianism how it usually goes anyways?
That's the whole point. The Ethics wheel missing one spin. Both Authoritarian\Egalitarian or Collectivist\Individualist alone are clearly not enough to describe even human ethics. Aliens are obviously out of question. I dunno why PDX is so stubborn about it, the faster they add another pair, the less work they have to do in the future.
In current form this debate cannot be resolved because all sides are right and wrong to some extend at the same time.
 
  • 6
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
Status
Not open for further replies.