• 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:
....that's a good question, actually. It might be that all the happiness modifiers for things like slavery are moved from the pops to the factions.

I imagine that everyone BUT xenophobes would be upset by purges, though...
Yeah, it would be weird if there wasn't widespread outcry against purges in say a egalitarian/militarist empire (Honorbound Warriors), but it would be immersion breaking if the militarist faction in a fanatical purifiers empire got upset....
 
So why can you be a fanatical egalitarian who supports xeno slavery?

Individualist/collectivist was better in my opinion, because individualist xenophobes can be compared to 19th century America (slavery of foreigners but rights for citizens). You don't have anywhere near the same degree of clash.
well that's an easy one. you don't consider xenos people. I am not sure how that's incompatible with egalitarianism in any way whatsoever at all.
 
  • 2
  • 1
Reactions:
Ur-Quan Lord made an interesting statement on the other thread about Egalitarianism though:
(https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/foru...have-become-that-which-you-hate.987334/page-2)

As to how it's used primarily, I won't comment. It's definitely used both ways. And other people in this thread have asserted that it's never used in the socialist sense, which is just as absurd as your claim that it's only used in the other way. And as absurd as the people before who couldn't understand that collectivism could also mean complete disregard for the individual.

As for egalitarianism ignoring the rights of those in the hierarchy... Well now what are you talking about? If you're saying "equal protection under the law" egalitarianism opposes the rights of those in an authoritarian hierarchy, then yes, obviously, because those rights aren't equal, and a state with an authoritarian hierarchy isn't neutral. If you're saying socialist egalitarianism opposes the rights of those in a capitalist hierarchy, then yes, I agree there too. Not really relevant to this discussion though. We're talking about how the egalitarianism in 1.5, defined as being against tyrants and for equal rights, is actually an accurate opposition to authoritarianism.

The entire crux of your argument was that "egalitarianism only ever means one thing" and the rest was just expounding on the ramifications of that, but I already disagree.

Anyway, not sure what word would we better for it. Just did a thesaurus check, the only close one was "impartial".
 
  • 2
Reactions:
well that's an easy one. you don't consider xenos people.

Yes, but then how is egalitarian a better word than individualist?

I hope we get a new easter egg event to commemorate Collectivism vs. Individualism II: Egalitarian Boogaloo

Something about the "authoritarian egalitarian" party clashing with the "individualist collective" over definitions :p
 
  • 1
Reactions:
@Wiz

Over all really really love the changes as they give a lot more life to ethics/factions and I think they will really improve game play for most empire types.

However for roleplaying for some empire types will become problematic without fanatic/multiple trait types.

Say for fanatical purifiers. Will the militarist/authoritarian pops be upset when I start purging the filthy xenos?

How about in say a fanatic authoritarian/materialist. Will the materialists be upset with my slaving?

Or will it be more like only xenophiles be upset with xeno-purges and only egalitarians are upset by slaving?

I had the same question. In my authoritarian/pacifist/materialist empire, will 2/3rds of the population be unhappy with slavery right off the bat? Even if I only enslave the authoritarians? And I'm sure the decadent trait I took will affect it (as will the conformist trait, of course).

In a fanatic authoritarian/whatever else empire, does that mean 1/3rd will be unhappy if there's any slavery, or 1/3rd that'll be unhappy if you enslave them specifically? If it's the 2nd, that actually makes fanatic authoritarianism a little more useful than current fanatic collectivism, more pops that can be docile slaves.
 
Yeah, but then you'd need mechanics to govern collectivist/individualist, which have since been assigned to authoritarian/egalitarian. I get what you're saying from a philosophical standpoint, but from a PRACTICAL standpoint, it's just difficult to implement right now, right?

The renaming might work, but it adds more problems. Does Authoritarian fit exactly for what they're going for? Of course not. But it does a decent job of getting the gist across of what they mean.
The knife cuts both ways. What does hierarchical mean, and how fine grained does it have to be applied? For instance, I have a boss at my job, who has a boss, all the way up to the president of the US (as a federal employee). That's definitively hierarchical, and most places have a similar hierarchy. Does that mean most of our societies are hierarchical? I would say that yes, they are INHERENTLY hierarchical, as a result of being organized. I would challenge you to find a functioning completely non-hierarchical form of government, especially on such a large scale.

All that said though, I DO agree that "Authoritarian" leaves a bad taste in my mouth. It seems to be at the very least a contested word, and one that often has a lot more moral, historical, and ethical baggage than its compatriot "Egalitarian". And your system does look pretty good, my reservations about "Hierarchical" aside.

Yeah, that is indeed the problem with adding another ethic pair.

As for hierarchy, it's basically where some individuals have more power than others. Fanatical hierarchists support massive power inequalities, while fanatical egalitarians want power to be evenly distributed. Note that power (AKA) is distinct from freedom.

As for whether our society is hierarchical, with all of the ethics, there's a grey zone in-between each (was 19th century society spiritualist or materialist?). A non-hierarchical society is really a hive mind, but I think when you look at history, it's clear that somewhere like Sweden is very much an individualist egalitarian society - there is a hierarchy, but it's very flat. Maybe the USA is a bit more hierarchical (i.e. libertarian, which does seem to conform with reality).

That said, I expect the system I mentioned has many flaws of its own, this being one of them.
 
  • 3
Reactions:
I should note that perceived legitimacy is a key aspect of all ideologies. For example, revolutionary authoritarian movements despise their current government and leaders, regarding them as illegitimate because they do not further the authoritarians goals or ideals for society.

Yes, but then how is egalitarian a better word than individualist?

For reference, this is how Wiz put it:

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.

How I would put it is that Individualism didn't really have a meaning; it is chimerical at best. It was 'Not Collectivist'. Egalitarian better articulates an an independent ideology that is not simply a rejection of another ideology.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Yeah, that is indeed the problem with adding another ethic pair.

As for hierarchy, it's basically where some individuals have more power than others. Fanatical hierarchists support massive power inequalities, while fanatical egalitarians want power to be evenly distributed. Note that power (AKA) is distinct from freedom.

As for whether our society is hierarchical, with all of the ethics, there's a grey zone in-between each (was 19th century society spiritualist or materialist?). A non-hierarchical society is really a hive mind, but I think when you look at history, it's clear that somewhere like Sweden is very much an individualist egalitarian society - there is a hierarchy, but it's very flat. Maybe the USA is a bit more hierarchical (i.e. libertarian, which does seem to conform with reality).

That said, I expect the system I mentioned has many flaws of its own, this being one of them.

I must say, that was quite well reasoned. Never thought of the whole positive/negative liberty dichotomy fitting in here, nor the idea of hierarchy/egalitarian being about power distribution rather than freedom per se (though the former definitely can be said to determine the latter to some degree). With the further explanation of the fanatical extremes, I rather like your system.

It's a shame about the mechanics. Someone tell Paradox to make more mechanics for us to assign ideologies to!
 
I should note that perceived legitimacy is a key aspect of all ideologies. For example, revolutionary authoritarian movements despise their current government and leaders, regarding them as illegitimate because they do not further the authoritarians goals or ideals for society.



For reference, this is how Wiz put it:



How I would put it is that Individualism didn't really have a meaning; it is chimerical at best. It was 'Not Collectivist'. Egalitarian better articulates an an independent ideology that is not simply a rejection of another ideology.

Also true. It would be great to avoid that word too. Ideally, imo, we'd have spartanlemur's underlying system with splitting the two ideologies, but rename individualist to something distinct. But that's just me.
 
C'mon guys, you're almost halfway done to thousand posts!
 
Liberalism would be the normal opposite of authoritarianism, tbh. Under extreme (totalitarian) authoritarianism, the state's rights are supreme. Under extreme liberalism (say libertarian socialists), the individual's rights are supreme. That's pretty much the axis; it's mostly thrashed out between Hobbs' Leviathan and JS Mill's On Liberalism.

Egalitarianism fits rather better as a citizenship policy than an ethic, tbh. One liberals would like and authoritarians would hate.
 
There are significant disagrements on the term Liberal and using it is politically fraught. Ref: 'Classical Liberals', Liberal parties vs the term Liberal, etc. Best avoided.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
How I would put it is that Individualism didn't really have a meaning; it is chimerical at best. It was 'Not Collectivist'. Egalitarian better articulates an an independent ideology that is not simply a rejection of another ideology.

Well with collectivist slavers, as I mentioned, we're looking at communist/fascist work camps.

Individualism is indeed the opposite of collectivist, it has its own meaning: liberal. I.e. individuals should make themselves happy rather than working to make the community happy. If you read fascist and communist texts, you can see very clearly that there is a lot of common ground (specifically, there is a focus on the individual being part of the whole - communists call you a "worker" while fascists call you a "national").

I think the problem might stem from people having flawed ideas about what collectivism is.

There are significant disagrements on the term Liberal and using it is politically fraught. Ref: 'Classical Liberals', Liberal parties vs the term Liberal, etc. Best avoided.

I agree, but above all else, it doesn't really seem suitable for a game about aliens. It's too Earth-based.

I prefer "individualist" ;)
 
Last edited:
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
There are significant disagrements on the term Liberal and using it is politically fraught. Ref: 'Classical Liberals', Liberal parties vs the term Liberal, etc. Best avoided.

Yeah, we wouldn't have these arguments if Americans would just learn to use the word 'Liberal' properly. :p But anyway, I think that particular ship sailed with a huge 'We don't care' flag when Paradox released V1 and V2 and used 'liberals' correctly. We had exactly these kind of pointless, interminable semantic arguments on the forum back then, too.

If they wanted a non-Earthy version, 'hierarchical' vs 'anarchic' would be the best bet for what the seem to be getting at, really. If 'Liberal' is too Earthy, then 'Authoritarianism' probably is too, since it's a connected concept. Both are basically points on the hierarchy vs anarchy scale.
 
  • 6
Reactions:
@spartanlemur : I think you are illustrating exactly the problem with individualist. You're subbing liberal in for it to make sense of it...
 
  • 1
Reactions:
  • I like that you're trying to make clarifying changes, but to be honest, these are more confusing than the original, and there's a major problem with this statement: "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. "
  • Thing is, those who truly respect individual rights FERVENTLY oppose true democracies, preferring law-based republics, etc. where rights are based on based on individual rights instead of democracy, which is majority rule & inherently suppressed the rights of individuals under the beliefs of the majority, however slight. This fundamental misunderstanding is part of the reason things are so jacked up in the US right now. A true, if colorful, example is that democracy is two wolves & a sheep deciding what to have for dinner. Frederic Bastiat wrote "The Law", which showed incredible insight for a document written so long ago & close to the US founding, by a foreign observer (French).
 
  • 5
  • 1
Reactions:
I hope the egalitarian is a perfect balance between capitalism and democracy but is that right? and if my assumption was wrong then where's my liberal capitalism?

Please visit my other post. Egalitarian/Authoritarian says nothing about economics, there are no economic representations in Stellaris.
Your liberal capitalism could be: Egalitarian + Materialist +Xenophile. But that´s only one idea.
Your economic system is not in the ethics! And that´s the whole reason many people misundertood that change.
 
Last edited:
  • I like that you're trying to make clarifying changes, but to be honest, these are more confusing than the original, and there's a major problem with this statement: "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. "
  • Thing is, those who truly respect individual rights FERVENTLY oppose true democracies, preferring law-based republics, etc. where rights are based on based on individual rights instead of democracy, which is majority rule & inherently suppressed the rights of individuals under the beliefs of the majority, however slight. This fundamental misunderstanding is part of the reason things are so jacked up in the US right now. A true, if colorful, example is that democracy is two wolves & a sheep deciding what to have for dinner. Frederic Bastiat wrote "The Law", which showed incredible insight for a document written so long ago & close to the US founding, by a foreign observer (French).

This is why I think we need to have a distinction between distribution of power (hierarchy vs egalitarian), and social values (collectivism vs individualism).
 
  • 3
Reactions:
Status
Not open for further replies.