• 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:
It requires ignoring the meaning you have chosen to elevate to the One True Meaning, in point of fact- which, again, plenty of people have provided compelling arguments for being silly.

But it's clear you don't care- you've already made up your mind, and your argument is thus irrelevant because you're not willing to change it to fit the actual facts.

I'm willing to take the time to show you where you've went off the rails here, but we're going to have to back up and punt.

Please define all possible meanings of the words "Authoritarianism" and "Egalitarianism," as you see them, and we'll go from there.

In the meantime you will agree that the context of the Ethics wheel is "diametrically opposed ethos," yes?
 
  • 5
  • 4
Reactions:
I'm willing to take the time to show you where you've went off the rails here, but we're going to have to back up and punt.

Please define all possible meanings of the words "Authoritarianism" and "Egalitarianism," as you see them, and we'll go from there.

In the meantime you will agree that the context of the Ethics wheel is "diametrically opposed ethos," yes?
Sorry, not interested in you rehashing your same flawed argument to me. You've already proven yourself unwilling to contemplate positions different than your own.
 
  • 4
  • 4
Reactions:
Sorry, not interested in you rehashing your same flawed argument to me. You've already proven yourself unwilling to contemplate positions different than your own.

That's not what's happening here. We disagree on terms. We cannot even have a proper debate without agreeing on terms. I offered you a chance to dictate terms definitely and you turned it down.

Literally speaking, of the two of us, you are the one unwilling to consider other positions because I just offered to consider yours in detail and you now refuse to provide it.
 
  • 6
  • 5
Reactions:
That's not what's happening here. We disagree on terms. We cannot even have a proper debate without agreeing on terms. I offered you a chance to dictate terms definitely and you turned it down.

Literally speaking, of the two of us, you are the one unwilling to consider other positions because I just offered to consider yours in detail and you now refuse to provide it.
Again: I have no interest in you rehashing an entire thread's worth of the same flawed argument to me. I'm also not obligated to become the spokesperson of all the people who have provided evidence against that flawed argument.
 
  • 4
  • 4
Reactions:
Again: I have no interest in you rehashing an entire thread's worth of the same flawed argument to me. I'm also not obligated to become the spokesperson of all the people who have provided evidence against that flawed argument.

It's cool, man, I get it, if you can't back your argument up with facts you'd rather not have that spelled out in detail publicly.

It's a lot easier to just pretend you've already won than to actually defend your position.

I completely understand. :)
 
  • 7
  • 6
Reactions:
It's cool, man, I get it, if you can't back your argument up with facts you'd rather not have that spelled out in detail publicly.

It's a lot easier to just pretend you've already won than to actually defend your position.

I completely understand. :)
Condescension and smug superiority hardly an argument makes.

You've chosen to ignore the many, many arguments that provide evidence contrary to your position- if you're unwilling to remedy that glaring self-deception, that's your problem. Again, I'm not obligated to defend the arguments of everyone else in this thread for you.
 
  • 5
  • 3
Reactions:
Condescension and smug superiority hardly an argument makes.

You've chosen to ignore the many, many arguments that provide evidence contrary to your position- if you're unwilling to remedy that glaring self-deception, that's your problem. Again, I'm not obligated to defend the arguments of everyone else in this thread for you.

I'm only asking you to defend *yours*
 
  • 4
  • 3
Reactions:
I can't believe you people are still arguing over the Ethic names.

It is pretty important though, considering ethics is a big part of how players create their faction identity.
 
  • 5
  • 4
Reactions:
Maybe if they just swapped out "Authoritarianism" with "Elitism" that'd resolve the conundrum right there? They'd be keeping the wheel how they want it, and would leave the "Authoritarianism vs. Libertarianism" open for modders to add in.

By doing "Authoritarianism vs. Egalitarianism" they're leaving no logical place for modders to add "Elitism" or "Libertarianism" onto the wheel without modders having to scrap the 1.5 change altogether. They're leaving no place for themselves to add those in later either should they want to, at least not without creating even more false dichotomies. So unless PDX has some bizarre alternate universe definition for Elitism the swap would resolve the entire issue.
 
Last edited:
  • 5
  • 3
Reactions:
So unless PDX has some bizarre alternate universe definition for Elitism

Given that we're being presented with bizarre alternative universe definitions for authoritarianism and egalitarianism and being told that "only poli sci freshmen and internet charts" actually use the terms as intended by those who invented them, this is actually likely.
 
  • 7
  • 3
Reactions:
Maybe if they just swapped out "Authoritarianism" with "Elitism" that'd resolve the conundrum right there? They'd be keeping the wheel how they want it, and would leave the "Authoritarianism vs. Libertarianism" open for modders to add in.

By doing "Authoritarianism vs. Egalitarianism" they're leaving no logical place for modders to add "Elitism" or "Libertarianism" onto the wheel without modders having to scrap the 1.5 change altogether. They're leaving no place for themselves to add those in later either should they want to, at least not without creating even more false dichotomies. So unless PDX has some bizarre alternate universe definition for Elitism the swap would resolve the entire issue.
it might stop the endless arguing might.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Been saying this since the thread started, but half the people in this thread don't seem to get it.

Authoritarianism as an ethic does not necessarily involve government. That is a view shaded by the 20th Century on Earth. The historical fact is that there have been plenty of authoritarian societies with quite minimal state structures. Authoritarianism can take the form, for example, of religious institutions, or social traditions like patronage. In Republican Rome, male patricians had a great deal of authority based exclusively on traditions and accepted values - only later were these codified into Roman law.

As to the general debate, we are talking about the standard distribution of political economic ethos as it applies to the indices in the game: research and output (and possibly the evolution of those ethos over time). On an x-y plot, one axis would consist of libertarian v. authoritarian; the other egalitarian v. elitist. The former would represent the relative power of individuals in the society versus the state or traditionalist structure, while the other axis would represent the scope of participation in the relevant power structures. And yes, you can have a 'libertarian' ethos and and elitist ethos at the same time, all this means that while individuals have relatively equal opportunities, the qualifications for participation in the power structures that matter are quite stringent.
 
  • 4
Reactions:
Given that we're being presented with bizarre alternative universe definitions for authoritarianism and egalitarianism and being told that "only poli sci freshmen and internet charts" actually use the terms as intended by those who invented them, this is actually likely.

Haha yep, I can't argue with that.
 
  • 4
  • 2
Reactions:
This argument has gone in circles long enough. Start a new thread on the topic if you want to continue discussing it.
 
  • 5
  • 4
  • 2
Reactions:
Status
Not open for further replies.