[shadowclasper]

So I wonder if there'll be future 'neutral' ethics that will work like hivemind but for Synthetic Ascension and Psionic Ascension?

Like I could see Synthetic Ascension being exclusive to a species that was created and started as a failed race's synthetic creation. Like the Amorph's from Schlock Mercenary (though they'd be biological ascension I guess?), no idea how that would work for Psionic Ascension. Maybe a species from another universe that psionically shot itself into this universe, but I have no idea why that would result in a different ethical structure entirely...

 

[Belaaron]

It just occurred to me...there's a missing "authority". Lottery. Determination of leaders completely at random from an eligible pool of qualified candidates. no vote, no appointment, no heirs of any kind. You get what you get, and you'll never know what it is until you do.

 

[PalmettoExplorer14]

Anybody noticed what it said about the Starfish Empire when Wiz hovered his mouse over cKnoor's government name? It's like the Star Empire from pre-1.5 but the text added militaristic to it. Seems that the old governments are still in game but with new text and flavor.

SWEET!

 

[Riftwalker]

It just occurred to me...there's a missing "authority". Lottery. Determination of leaders completely at random from an eligible pool of qualified candidates. no vote, no appointment, no heirs of any kind. You get what you get, and you'll never know what it is until you do.

you know, we're also missing anarchy while we're at it. no de jure leader, just factions vying for power, like warlords of china, or some of the warlords of Africa currently. You don't have elections you have succession wars. Abstracted out obviously.

 

[Primarch Victus]

It just occurred to me...there's a missing "authority". Lottery. Determination of leaders completely at random from an eligible pool of qualified candidates. no vote, no appointment, no heirs of any kind. You get what you get, and you'll never know what it is until you do.

Who need something like that? the authorities are perfect the way they are.

you know, we're also missing anarchy while we're at it. no de jure leader, just factions vying for power, like warlords of china, or some of the warlords of Africa currently. You don't have elections you have succession wars. Abstracted out obviously.

We will already have this kind of thing (factions vying for control) in Utopia, so we don't need of any kind of anarchic "authority".

 

[Riftwalker]

We will already have this kind of thing (factions vying for control) in Utopia, so we don't need of any kind of anarchic "authority".

nonononononononono, not enough intraspecies bloodshed on change of power. Also the "election" events would just occur based on pressure instead of yearly or on death.

What i'm imagining is more like the Factions system in Europa in China and meritocracies in how it's abstracted

 

[GC13]

It just occurred to me...there's a missing "authority". Lottery. Determination of leaders completely at random from an eligible pool of qualified candidates. no vote, no appointment, no heirs of any kind. You get what you get, and you'll never know what it is until you do.

That would be a Civic, not an authority type. It would either be a whole bunch of random leaders (a democracy), a few of them (an oligarchy), or one of them (a dictatorship) where your ability to influence it was removed but you got some other tradeoff instead. It's the same principle as if telepaths were the rulers: they're still ruling as either a large council, a small council, or one ruler.

Really the fact that dictatorship and imperial succession are represented as wholly different authorities is kind of off, but I can see why they decided to make the distinction. Mostly though, Authority is for how many people rule while Civics are for quirks about how they rule.

 

[Primarch Victus]

nonononononononono, not enough intraspecies bloodshed on change of power. Also the "election" events would just occur based on pressure instead of yearly or on death.

What i'm imagining is more like the Factions system in Europa in China and meritocracies in how it's abstracted

Stellaris is good the way it is and in the way it will be when Utopia is released. I don't know about the other players, but I have no interest in such thing like "factions vying for power".

 

[terrycloth]

That would be a Civic, not an authority type. It would either be a whole bunch of random leaders (a democracy), a few of them (an oligarchy), or one of them (a dictatorship) where your ability to influence it was removed but you got some other tradeoff instead. It's the same principle as if telepaths were the rulers: they're still ruling as either a large council, a small council, or one ruler.

Really the fact that dictatorship and imperial succession are represented as wholly different authorities is kind of off, but I can see why they decided to make the distinction. Mostly though, Authority is for how many people rule while Civics are for quirks about how they rule.

You'd be spending influence to cheat on the lottery without being caught.

Or, actually -- you could have the lottery change leaders once a year, with super-specific and ridiculous agendas, like 'declare war on X' or 'colonize Y' or 'build a frontier outpost at Z' picked completely at random. Also give a much higher than normal chance for the leader to have only negative traits (since there's no vetting process whatsoever).

 

[Belaaron]

That would be a Civic, not an authority type. It would either be a whole bunch of random leaders (a democracy), a few of them (an oligarchy), or one of them (a dictatorship) where your ability to influence it was removed but you got some other tradeoff instead. It's the same principle as if telepaths were the rulers: they're still ruling as either a large council, a small council, or one ruler.

Really the fact that dictatorship and imperial succession are represented as wholly different authorities is kind of off, but I can see why they decided to make the distinction. Mostly though, Authority is for how many people rule while Civics are for quirks about how they rule.

You'd be spending influence to cheat on the lottery without being caught.

Or, actually -- you could have the lottery change leaders once a year, with super-specific and ridiculous agendas, like 'declare war on X' or 'colonize Y' or 'build a frontier outpost at Z' picked completely at random. Also give a much higher than normal chance for the leader to have only negative traits (since there's no vetting process whatsoever).

Firstly..."authority" is the component that determines what demographic rules, and the process used to establish that rule. Civics are, as you said, the quirks of how they actually administer the government during their rule. At which point, a lottery is as much a valid selection process of a valid demographic as democracy or any form of authoritarianism. Really, government should be broken into three parts. The method of establishment (democracy, heredity, appointment...and lottery), the source of power (shared "congress/council", checked absolutism "idealized US", and full absolutism), and then the civics which are really pretty fine as-is. As such, you could have democratic absolutism, or hereditary congressional positions...or whatever other combination.

Second...what would make one assume that because I didn't list a specific "vetting" process for lottery candidates, that one would simply not exist at all? What kind of nonsense is that? Moreover, it can't possibly be worse than current systems. It may not necessarily be better...but it cannot be worse. Besides, you can't spend influence that way...unless the Devs decided they wanted it that way...which would be stupid and completely without purpose.

 

[TheDeadlyShoe]

'lottery' would probably be that you recruit a random leader rather than getting a choice

 

[terrycloth]

Firstly..."authority" is the component that determines what demographic rules, and the process used to establish that rule. Civics are, as you said, the quirks of how they actually administer the government during their rule. At which point, a lottery is as much a valid selection process of a valid demographic as democracy or any form of authoritarianism. Really, government should be broken into three parts. The method of establishment (democracy, heredity, appointment...and lottery), the source of power (shared "congress/council", checked absolutism "idealized US", and full absolutism), and then the civics which are really pretty fine as-is. As such, you could have democratic absolutism, or hereditary congressional positions...or whatever other combination.

Second...what would make one assume that because I didn't list a specific "vetting" process for lottery candidates, that one would simply not exist at all? What kind of nonsense is that? Moreover, it can't possibly be worse than current systems. It may not necessarily be better...but it cannot be worse. Besides, you can't spend influence that way...unless the Devs decided they wanted it that way...which would be stupid and completely without purpose.

It would have exactly the same purpose as spending influence to rig an election. Rigging a lottery should be easier.

 

[Belaaron]

It would have exactly the same purpose as spending influence to rig an election. Rigging a lottery should be easier.

Actually, it's not...or the lotteries that exist would almost never be won by anyone who isn't already absurdly wealthy (or some kind of technical genius), and they would never break 100mil.

 

[Velorian]

Actually, it's not...or the lotteries that exist would almost never be won by anyone who isn't already absurdly wealthy (or some kind of technical genius), and they would never break 100mil.

I don't know about that.

If the ones drawing the lottery is also in charge of law and order as well as monitoring the process then corrupting the result is going to be rather simple.

Still wouldn't work without corruption, but few government systems manage to stay clear of that.

 

[PalmettoExplorer14]

Hm...

So far we've seen a small sampling of the civics.

My guess that there are probably dozens of civics, probably based on ethics. The ones so far seen are the basic ones and the militarist as well as pacifist civics, one materialist, and two spiritualist civics. By my estimates, you can potentially create a large number of governments and cultures from this many civics.

 

[PaulMClem]

Quite like the sound of the Mechanist civic. Presumably robots can't form factions or suffer ethos drift (as they won't have an ethos).

Quick query - what is a Xeno pop?

 

[ashbery76]

Any civics for specialising in processing xeno meat.This should be a valid strategy in food trading.

 

[PaulMClem]

Quick query - what is a Xeno pop?

Think I can perhaps answer my own question thanks to Google i.e. a Xeno pop is just a pop of a different species?

 

[Caspoi]

yes, xeno is another word for alien.

 

[AndragonLea]

It just occurred to me...there's a missing "authority". Lottery. Determination of leaders completely at random from an eligible pool of qualified candidates. no vote, no appointment, no heirs of any kind. You get what you get, and you'll never know what it is until you do.

Better yet: as it has been proven by now that anybody who wants to lead is corrupted and should under no circumstances be allowed anywhere near that level of authority, we should have an authority that's called "anti lottery". We collect the names of everybody who wants to lead and then randomly choose from a pool of people that didn't volunteer. ^^

Imagine getting a letter one day and being informed that a secret lottery has chosen you as the leader of the United League of Planets for the next 4 years.