• 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:
A society like that would presumably have traits that make the attraction to government ethics very strong, cancelling out the increased attraction to egalitarian. It's not like every slave is instantly going to become egalitarian, it's just a factor.

I honestly love this game because of the way you think Wiz. This is (I think) your first non-historical strategy game and it's so cool that you think about how the lore can exist or why it does.
 
  • 3
  • 2
Reactions:
The conceptual problem that the "we love money" ethic was diametrically opposed to the "we love slavery" ethic, which didn't make sense because there are surely a lot of ruthless space cartels that love both money and slavery. So they pulled away the "we love money" part and made it just "we love slavery" versus "we hate slavery". Am I on the right track?
I think that part of the problem is that Individualism wasn't just "we love money"- it was a confused mishmash of concepts, similarly to Collectivism.
 
  • 4
  • 1
Reactions:
Looking forward to this new ethics system. How fractions work in monarchies? I mean, in democracy leader of fraction can become a president etc. but what about monarchies? They works like court fractions? Will we see a civil wars within star empires? IMHO a hierarchical - egalitarian opposition sounds better than authoritarian - egalitarian (and you can use old collectivist symbol for hierarchical)
 
  • 2
Reactions:
This seems very interesting. With this ethics rework, I hope to see new ethics and empire types come up. It would make the galaxy a much more interesting place. Also, question. Does the game have a code that makes it so Xenophobic fallen empires and other empires of opposite ethics always spawn next to you? Just curious.
 
This seems very interesting. With this ethics rework, I hope to see new ethics and empire types come up. It would make the galaxy a much more interesting place. Also, question. Does the game have a code that makes it so Xenophobic fallen empires and other empires of opposite ethics always spawn next to you? Just curious.

I think it's totally random and any patterns are coincidental ^^ In my last game I played a militaristic empire and I spawned in the middle of like 5 other militarists! It's as if karma tucked all the warmongers into one little corner of the galaxy XD

That said in Heinlein they did make it so advanced start empires are more likely to be fanatical purifiers and other unpleasant AI personalities. So if you allowed advanced neighbours in your game you could theoretically spawn surrounded by some xenophobes, but I don't think Fallen Empires are included in that.
 
I think it's totally random and any patterns are coincidental ^^ In my last game I played a militaristic empire and I spawned in the middle of like 5 other militarists! It's as if karma tucked all the warmongers into one little corner of the galaxy XD

That said in Heinlein they did make it so advanced start empires are more likely to be fanatical purifiers and other unpleasant AI personalities. So if you allowed advanced neighbours in your game you could theoretically spawn surrounded by some xenophobes, but I don't think Fallen Empires are included in that.
LOL then Stellaris must really hate me. Every game I've played, I would always spawn next to a xenophobic Fallen Empire, and, for example, if I chose materialist then at least 66% of the other empires would be spiritualist.
 
  • 2
Reactions:
What I would love though is, If per say I create a super fanatical purging race. When these factions or upset pops come up, I would gladly like to easily just purge them all. Manually hunting these pops are annoying :p
 
I really love this rework of ethics, but I dearly hope that in time there will be additional ethics added that reflect both an ultra capitalist and collectivist view point, both of which are sentiments that have a long, storied tradition in science fiction. We've got everything from the planet lotting ad reps and of course the mercilessly exploitative societies of many environmentalist sci fi stories, to the many communist stand ins that populate the villains of classic works ranging from the Body Snatchers to Starship Troopers.

Similarly, I feel that Stellaris is badly in need of a sort of ecologist ethic, if only for the sake of me roleplaying my terrible Dune fanfiction where Liet Kynes takes control of Arrakis instead of Paul Atreides.

This stuff is essential to me because empire ethics really highlight the roleplaying aspect of Stellaris, which is honestly the primary reason I play the game.
 
  • 6
Reactions:
[...]

Similarly, I feel that Stellaris is badly in need of a sort of ecologist ethic, if only for the sake of me roleplaying my terrible Dune fanfiction where Liet Kynes takes control of Arrakis instead of Paul Atreides.

[...]

I think ecologist would be hard to work into the ethos system, because you rarely find someone that would take the opposite position - I'm actually stumped when trying to think of an ethical/philosophical/political opposite of ecologism/ecologicism. If we're talking on a social scale, to boot, it might be hard. It could make sense though, from a utilitarian point of view; consumption of biospheres and materials are good, and there's always another planet anyway, right?

Could make sense for locust-type of civilizations, which is honestly something that's been theorized to be the fate of any sufficiently advanced space-faring civilization, due to the potential for exponential growth.

But who am I kidding, in Stellaris, we might as well oppose Ecologism with Dermatologism, it would make about as much sense as Egalitarian vs. Authoritarian, after all. :p
 
  • 2
  • 2
Reactions:
Could make sense for locust-type of civilizations, which is honestly something that's been theorized to be the fate of any sufficiently advanced space-faring civilization, due to the potential for exponential growth.

I'd imagine they'd be adept at mining technologies that vastly out produce other techs but reduce the planet' ability to be inhabited in the process, if we ever get a hive race dlc that'd be a very strong thematic combo.
 
Dear Wiz, I am afraid there are two very different meanings for Egalitarianism:
- Legal egalitarianism
- Social egalitarianism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egalitarianism

While the first is a necessary part of a liberal society, the second is quite opposed to it and it is usually associated to authoritarian social organizations. So naming an ethos 'Egalitarianism' is going to create a lot of confusion.

You should try not relying on Wikipedia to make a fact based argument. Do your own research. Egalitarianism is derived from the French word "Eqal" which means "Equal."
 
  • 3
  • 1
Reactions:
I think ecologist would be hard to work into the ethos system, because you rarely find someone that would take the opposite position - I'm actually stumped when trying to think of an ethical/philosophical/political opposite of ecologism/ecologicism. If we're talking on a social scale, to boot, it might be hard. It could make sense though, from a utilitarian point of view; consumption of biospheres and materials are good, and there's always another planet anyway, right?[...]
They'd make for bad ethics, but could be pretty solid policies (that somewhat relate to ethics).

Personally I'd use Kim Stanley Robinson's Mars Triology for the naming convention:
Red -> Preserve the "natural" state of planetary bodies ("adapt the colonists, not the planet")
Green -> Limited terraforming to make them habitable, while preserving some of the original environment ("a bit of both")
Blue -> Full terraforming and conversion ("adapt the planet, not the colonists")

Spiritualist could be more interested in preservation (see FE's and their Holy Worlds), while Materialists would be eager to apply their fancy new techs. Xenophiles might go with a middle-of-the-road approach, while Xenophobes strive to adapt the planets to their pops (etc).
 
Last edited:
  • 6
Reactions:
Didn't read all the thread and apologies if it has already answered...
But I would like to know if with the new ethics system, the "integration" of new pops (conquered population) will too be based solely on “attraction value” and happiness.
As of now, conquered pops tend to form factions that are dissolved the more they are integrated. So, while happiness is an incredible bonus, ethics divergences bonus (so a positive tendency to not stray from the values you choose to pick at the start) can work together (or in opposition) to the happiness mechanics. While maybe isn’t exactly ideal at the moment, it was possible to aim for “ethic divergence reduction build” and/or “happiness build” (i.e. a republic of xenophobe militarists).
Will these mechanics will be reworked too in the oncoming patch? And will they be based solely on happiness/attraction value (making it the only things to aim for)?
In short, how integrations under a new ruler will work?
Will it be possible to speed it up, in case?
Also, regarding this matter, the trait “conformist” will too be reworked?

I know it is a side matter to the upcoming rework, but I would like to know the answers: mainly because while the “attraction value” seem a good thing on paper, I have mixed feeling about its practice.
 
I think ecologist would be hard to work into the ethos system, because you rarely find someone that would take the opposite position - I'm actually stumped when trying to think of an ethical/philosophical/political opposite of ecologism/ecologicism.
You're actually stumped? Industrialism, easily. Not to get too real-world political, but there are plenty of examples of opponents of environmentalism on this planet right now.

Ecological preservation vs. economic/industrial development is actually a really strong idea for a potential expansion of the ethics system. But there are a couple things to consider:

- To what extent is the concept already contained in Spiritualism vs. Materialism?

- What would be the mechanical effects, especially of Environmentalism? Planetary environments in Stellaris are currently pretty static, except for blocker removal and terraforming. The assumption seems to be that your civilization is sustainable by default. So what concrete game benefit would Environmentalists bring? At face value, it seems like they'd just get upset by clearing blockers and be really annoying.
 
Last edited:
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
You're actually stumped? Industrialism, easily. Not to get too real-world political, but there are plenty of examples of opponents of environmentalism on this planet right now.

Ecological preservation vs. economic/industrial development is actually a really strong idea for a potential expansion of the ethics system. But there are a couple things to consider:

- To what extent is the concept already contained in Spiritualism vs. Materialism?

- What would be the mechanical effects, especially of Environmentalism? Planetary environments in Stellaris are currently pretty static, except for blocker removal and terraforming. The assumption seems to be that your civilization is sustainable by default. So what concrete game benefit would Environmentalists bring? At face value, it seems like they'd just get upset by clearing blockers and be really annoying.

I guess if you can colonise a planet and terraform it then environmentalism would just be a background thing, having the technology to suck mass amounts of carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere, removing mountains, etc. It would be an interesting addition to have problems where you accidentally ruin a planet by mining too much but I think a civilisation that can sustain itself would be a given if it's one that's capable of unifying a planet.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
I imagine the faction leadership screen being something like the tech panel, with certain aspects of your government set to certain tasks, some better at whichever policy you are pursuing, but with factions instead of specializations. So if say the faction that only egalitarians can belong to, the one that only xenophiles can belong to, and the one that say both egalitarians and xenophiles can belong to, then your empire might turn into a fanatic xenophile, fanatic egalatarian, and force you to change to a government type matching that ethos combination over time. Even if you had originally begun as say Authoritarian, Materialistic, Militaristic or whatever, but by cultivating leaders from these ethos you could swing it back over time.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.