• 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.

Victoria 3 - Dev Diary #7 - Laws

dd7.png


After a couple weeks vacation, we’ve now returned to our usual weekly dev diary schedule! Today we will be diving deeper into Victoria’s politics to talk about Laws. Legal reform in your country creates different political, economic, and social conditions for your Pops, which over time changes the fabric of your society. This change can be slow and incremental, or fast and revolutionary - sometimes literally.

There are three major categories of Laws with seven sub-categories in each, which themselves contain up to half a dozen specific Law options. As always everything here is being heavily iterated upon, including these sub-categories, so the laws you see at release will not exactly match what we’re telling you here!

Power Structure
These Laws determine who is in control of different aspects of your country. It includes fundamental Governance Principles such as Monarchy and Parliamentary Republic, which determine who your Head of State is and what kind of powers they wield. Distribution of Power ranges from Autocracy and Oligarchy through various extensions of the voting franchise all the way to Universal Suffrage. Citizenship and Church and State Laws govern which Pops suffer legal discrimination in your country due to their culture or religion. The principles on which your Bureaucracy is run - such as hereditary or elected positions for bureaucrats - determine how expensive it is to keep track of each citizen and how much Institutions cost to run, but also directly benefit some groups over others. Conscription lets you raise a part of your civilian workforce as soldiers in times of war, and Internal Security governs how the Home Affairs anti-insurgent Institution works.

The Power Structure Laws of a typical European nation after having made a few strides towards liberalization. The numbers in green refers to the number of alternative Laws currently available to be enacted. This indicator is used throughout the UI to reveal how many options a sub-menu has without having to open it.
dd7_1.png

Economy
This set of Laws define where your treasury’s money comes from and how it can be spent. Your Economic System is crucial - this governs whether your country operates on principles of Mercantilism, Isolationism, or Free Trade, among others. Income Tax determines which Pops should be taxed and what range of tax burden is appropriate. No Income Tax at all is of course an option, and legislation to such effect will make some Pops both rich and happy! Poll Taxation, or levying a fixed tax per head, is another option primarily used in less industrialized societies. (There are other avenues of taxation as well, but these are the ones driven by legislation.) Finally, you can choose what form the Institutions of Colonization, Policing, Education System, and Health System will take in your country. For example, you can keep government spending under control by instituting Charity Hospitals, which have limited effect and boost the power of the clergy, or you could pass a Public Health Insurance Law which is costlier but can have a greater impact on the health of the masses.

Payroll Taxes require reasonable lower-class wages and a centralized population to pay off, but if so can form the economic basis for a budding welfare system as seen here. A tax system based on Levying might be more lucrative in countries with huge Peasant populations.
dd7_2.png

Human Rights
Enshrining the rights of the individual was a hallmark of the era. These Laws define how your Pops are treated and what manner of control you can enforce over their lives. Free Speech determines the degree of control you can enforce over your Interest Groups but restrictive rights throttle the spread of innovation. The Labor Rights Laws include outlawing serfdom, but extends all the way to establishing a Workplace Safety Institution to reduce the number of people literally crushed in the jaws of industry. Children’s Rights and the Rights of Women have a number of effects such as shifting the Workforce/Dependent demographics, affecting Dependent income, and extending the franchise. Welfare ensures the poor and disabled in your society are taken care of. Migration Laws can be used to influence Pop migration. Slavery Laws determine the legal status of owning people in your country. More details on that subject in a future dev diary.

Not a lot of concessions have been made here, but at least children may congregate freely after the factory whistle signals the end of their grueling workday.
dd7_3.png

Laws are almost always completely independent from one another. You can create a Constitutional Monarchy with hereditary succession but Universal Suffrage, or an Autocratic Presidential Republic with a strongman leader at the top of the food chain. You can have a Secret Police and still permit fully Protected Speech.

Our aim is to set all countries up with the best fitting Laws compared to what they actually had in 1836. This will vary wildly between countries, and will greatly influence what sorts of conditions and strategies are available to you at the start of the game. For example, the USA starts with Total Separation of Church and State, ensuring no Pops suffer legal discrimination on account of their religion, while Sardinia-Piedmont doesn’t take kindly to non-Catholic Pops. This will affect Pops who live in the country currently, but will also limit which Pops might migrate there - few Pops would make it their preference to move to a country where they’re mistreated by law.

As a result of these starting Laws Sardinia-Piedmont might have to look towards colonization or conquest if they start to run out of their native workforce, while North America is likely to get regular migration waves to help expand the frontier. By connecting these effects to starting Laws, many historically appropriate and recognizable aspects and behaviors of Victorian-era nations - such as their attractiveness to immigrants - are connected to a tangible property (e.g. poor or oppressed Pops emigrating to the USA both because of its demand for workforce and also its liberal Laws) rather than being arbitrarily encoded into the very fabric of the nation itself, the approach previous Victoria games took to encourage history in the a familiar direction.

However, these starting Laws are far from set in stone! You might want to reform your Laws to better suit the direction your society is going - for example, you might want to transition your Bureaucracy from a system of Appointees to Elected Bureaucrats in order to more effectively provide services from Government Institutions to all your incorporated territories (or maybe just because you want to disempower the otherwise powerful Intelligentsia.) Or your country’s Agrarian economy has plateaued on account of increased reliance on imports of manufactured goods, and you want to change course to the exciting opportunities provided by a Free Trade policy.

A common effect of Laws is to modify some parameter about your country, like give you more Authority or reduce certain Pops’ Mortality. But Laws can also permit or disallow the use of certain actions, such as Public Schools which permit the Compulsory Primary School Law; permit the Decree to Promote Social Mobility in a certain state; and even alter the effects of other parts of your society, like boost the efficacy of your Education System Institution. Without some degree of separation between Church and State, this form of secular school system is not possible.
dd7_4.png

Another reason to change Laws is because your people demand it. As we touched on in the previous dev diary, Interest Groups have Ideologies that lead them to favor some Laws over others - for example, the Industrialists have the Individualist Ideology that cause them to favor privately operated Education and Healthcare systems over publicly funded ones, to ensure best access is given to those of merit and morals (or in other words, Wealth). Reforming your current Laws to work more in accordance with your powerful Interest Groups’ Ideologies is a quick way to win their Approval, permitting you more leeway to go against their wishes in the future or as a quick pick-me-up in case their Standard of Living has recently taken a hit.

The inverse is also true. Introduce a bill to abolish the Monarchy in Great Britain and see how the Landed Gentry feel about that.

Even Trade Unionists have a hard time saying no to zero income taxes, but even that won’t make up for restricting the vote!
dd7_6.png

Enacting a Law is far from an instantaneous, one-click affair. First off, any reform must be supported by at least one Interest Group in your government who can champion the change. Once the reform has begun it can be a smooth process that’s over in a matter of months, or it can take years of gruelling debate in parliament or horsetrading between Interest Groups in order to pass. The amount of time it takes depends both on your government’s Legitimacy in the eyes of the people, and also on the Clout of the Interest Groups in your government that supports and opposes the new Law relative to the one it’s replacing. While broader coalitions of Interest Groups in government give you more options of Laws to enact, it also complicates getting them passed.

Changing your laws isn’t an entirely straightforward process in Victoria 3! In this case it’s just a matter of time before the Law is enacted, but if dissenting Interest Groups had also been part of this government there would be plenty of room for Debate and Stalling tactics that could cause this reform to take more effort than it’s worth.
dd7_5.png

Let me close out here by tying all this back to the Pops. As we have touched on in past dev diaries, Pops have a Profession, collect an income, and consume goods depending on the economic preconditions you have created in your country. These material concerns in combination with a few others, such as Literacy, determine which Interest Groups they support. Other aspects, such as your country’s Laws, influence how much Political Strength the Pops provide to those Interest Groups. The Interest Groups have an Approval score and favor certain Laws over others. As a result, different groups of Pops approve more or less of the society you have built depending on their economic well-being, and their demands for change is more or less intimidating depending on how many and strong they are. You may choose to placate an angry group, or further benefit an already content group for extra benefits. But in doing so, some other group will become displeased. Have you built your society resilient enough to navigate these ebbs and flows? And most importantly, which of the many, many routes will you take to move forward?

That is all for me this week! In this dev diary I mentioned Institutions a number of times, and next Thursday I will be back with more details on this powerful society-shaping tool. Until then!
 
  • 268Like
  • 186Love
  • 16
  • 8
  • 6
Reactions:
Hereditary Bureaucracy (where offices are inherited?) is supposed to be typical for Europe? Many countries probably favored aristocrats in the highest offices, but people didn't just inherit their jobs.

It could also represent a bureucracy that's defacto hereditry, not officially so; nepotism resulting in the sons, nephews and so's of existing/former bureaucrats getting the job on their connections, regardless of their qualifications.
 
  • 2
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Without some degree of separation between Church and State, this form of secular school system is not possible.
In christian ideology - church and state ALWAYS is separate... On fast - Gelasian Theory or the Theory of the Two Swords. Or Koneczny Theory about Civilization. Or anything other... Even in Caesaropapism State and Church are two, separate institutions...

I know, that modern western peoples were by generations indoctrinated by totalitarian ideology of democratism and liberalism, but we should be serious...
 
  • 13
  • 7Haha
  • 2
Reactions:
In christian ideology - church and state ALWAYS is separate... On fast - Gelasian Theory or the Theory of the Two Swords. Or Koneczny Theory about Civilization. Or anything other... Even in Caesaropapism State and Church are two, separate institutions...

I know, that modern western peoples were by generations indoctrinated by totalitarian ideology of democratism and liberalism, but we should be serious...
Separation of church and state means that the state and church aren't dependent on one another in some capacity and don't sanction one another, either officially or practically. Saying that a society lacks separation of church and state doesn't conflate the two institutions, but rather indicates that no close relationship between them exists.

Just because a Christian church recognizes that it isn't literally the state doesn't mean that it can't be made an institutional part of the regime (by being local administrators and tax collectors, for example) or benefit indirectly from state-sanctioned persecution of competing religions (the Russian Empire's treatment of its Jewish populations is a famous example).
 
  • 8Like
Reactions:
It's here:
Thank you very much.
It seem a totally incorrect description of what was census suffrage, in fact and in spirit.
A regrettable confusion between the census suffrage (which totally excluded poor literate individuals) and the capacity suffrage (which in its most extensive shape included literate individuals, albeit it was common to be about higher academic grade than just literacy).
 
Thank you very much.
It seem a totally incorrect description of what was census suffrage, in fact and in spirit.
No it is not, for example it matches perfectly to the voting sistem instituted by the frist portuguese republic, I would also like to point out that wealth based vothing is represented, by the aptly named "wealth voting" law, so while i'll concede that the name might have diferent conotations over there, but restricting the vote to those who can read, is verry much in line with the spirit of census suffrage.
 
No it is not, for example it matches perfectly to the voting sistem instituted by the frist portuguese republic, I would also like to point out that wealth based vothing is represented, by the aptly named "wealth voting" law, so while i'll concede that the name might have diferent conotations over there, but restricting the vote to those who can read, is verry much in line with the spirit of census suffrage.

Yes it is.

It matches perfectly the voting system instituted by the French Monarchy of July too. That it matches some systems obviously do not means that it matches census all suffrage systems. Neither Portugal nor France are representative of the world and, more importantly, Portuguese and French capacity suffrage systems (combined with census suffrage) cannot be representative of real census suffrage systems.

Its just that the voting system instituted by the First Portuguese Republic of by the French Monarchy of July isn't a pure census system (as the name suggest by itself), but is the combination of a census system (for the wealthy) and of a capacity system (for the literate).

It doesn't match at all the French Restoration system, for example. Being literate do not mean at all that you earn enough money. Especially since some census systems were quite high and even excluded, in some case, the most part of the bourgeoisie!
Restricting the vote to those who can read, is simply not in line with the spirit of census suffrage. The spirit of the census suffrage isn't related to literacy but to ownership. The point isn't that smart guys should decide because they are smarter, but that rich guys should decide because they are those who have the most to lose in bad political decisions (and because they are allegedly those who contribute the most to the state's funds).

Victoria should ideally both have a census system and a census and capacity system.
 
Last edited:
It matches perfectly the voting system instituted by the French Monarchy of July too. That it matches some systems do not means that it matches census suffrage systems.

Its just that the voting system instituted by the First Portuguese Republic of by the French Monarchy of July isn't a pure census system (as the name suggest by itself), but is the combination of a census system (for the wealthy) and of a capacity system (for the literate).

It doesn't match at all the French Restoration system, for example.
Victoria should both have a census system and a census and capacity system.
we are now descusing semantics ( wich arguably is where the key issue here) because over here "census suffrage" means any kind of restricted suffrage e.i both wealth based and capacity based suffrage would both get called the same thing, census suffrage, (tough i'll admit that if we call wealth based suffrage, wealth voting, why not call literacy based voting, capacity voting?) another thing, I think in a previous dev diary the devs said they would consider also adding a wealth requirement to census suffrage (meaning that your concern gets solved, but now we lack pure capacity suffrage)
 
I know, that modern western peoples were by generations indoctrinated by totalitarian ideology of democratism and liberalism, but we should be serious...
I am extremely convinced by these types of responses that Paradox is wrong to penalize religious education. Its proponents are just so rational and well informed.
 
  • 14Haha
  • 1
Reactions:
Before the Westernization of Eastern autocratic countries, the legal system and social state of these countries were very different from those of western countries. I hope this difference can be reflected in the game. The Westernization process of Eastern countries will become an interesting point in Vic3, whether it is the opening-up by force or self-reform, such as the Opium War and the Meiji Restoration.
 
  • 2Like
  • 1
Reactions:
@dragonluke
dragonluke said:
Disturbing
Man what do they teach at schools in poland?
Oh, great! Super substantive issue...

You had to noted, where am I from, and give as general information. This was obvious someone will do this. If someone does not believe in modern western doctrines, it must be Untermenschen. There isn't important substantive - only human origin. "Real humans" have to believe in modern, western doctrines and interpretation of world. That "Extra Democratia et Liberalismus nulla salus" etc...

Yes, for western ideology I'm Untermensch. And also I give answet to next your question - also have some jewish blood in my body. So my opinion for western peoples isn't important and have to be disturbing....

Separation of church and state means that the state and church aren't dependent on one another in some capacity and don't sanction one another, either officially or practically. Saying that a society lacks separation of church and state doesn't conflate the two institutions, but rather indicates that no close relationship between them exists.
Separation mean separation. State isn't church and church isn't state.
A situation where there is complete apathy for the church-state relationship is greater than separation.

But "complete apathy" is only a non-real, idealistic concept in western political philosophy, Similar like "bon sauvage" or "social contrat" or "dialectical materialism". Always are interactions. And in situation, when state have strength (physical, economical, political etc.) and church have to silent because "separation church-state" or "secular and non-denominational state" mean supremacy of state. Like in Bismark Germany in Kulturkampf period (this policy was ended only because popularity of socialismus growth up). Realisation part of fascist concept "nothing outside the state, nothing against the state".

And also here we have very important question to Pdx. Do eg, GBR or SWE, where religious leader was (and still is) also head of state and national church had influence on policy, where catholics were (and in few aspects still are) discriminated (eg. monarch in London cannot be catholic or few high offices also are locked for catholics) wouldn't have able option "Public Schools"? Or V3 will pretend blind and recognize that theocratic protestant monarchies are after all a separation.
 
Last edited:
  • 11
  • 1
Reactions:
In christian ideology - church and state ALWAYS is separate... On fast - Gelasian Theory or the Theory of the Two Swords. Or Koneczny Theory about Civilization. Or anything other... Even in Caesaropapism State and Church are two, separate institutions...

I know, that modern western peoples were by generations indoctrinated by totalitarian ideology of democratism and liberalism, but we should be serious..
Papal states?
 
Papal states?
Still.

Papal State isn't church. If Papal State was in Salt War (1482-1484) - this was war of Papal State. Not "church war". In War of Urbino (1517) Urbino and Venice had war with Papal State - not with Roman-Catholic Church.
 
  • 6
Reactions:
Hmmm so @lachek has the old system of chamber + upper house been scrapped? I like this new "debates" system, it is a good abstraction of how policies and laws have to go through the political system and be supported/opposed by the major political players before being enacted.

However at some level the "piechart" of political factions and their approve/disaprove power slices has to be easily visible somehow. I hope that is being considered. The "four stages of approval" system shown in the last pic does not let you easily see how the major influence groups are weighing it the process, though of course I know we are seeing an unfinished thing. Tooltips maybe.

Nice work!
 
Separation mean separation. State isn't church and church isn't state.
You're taking "separation of church and state" much more literally than it's meant to be taken. The phrase originated from a letter Thomas Jefferson wrote in the early 1800s - his exact wording was "wall of separation between church and state." In context he was clearly being emphatic about the extent and nature of America's commitment to religious freedom (which was accomplished primarily by the separation of church and state); his main goal wasn't to reiterate the literal meaning of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution but to explain its practical effect.

In other words, the point is to avoid a substantive working or symbiotic relationship between the state and any church, not merely to satisfy the requirement that church and state be different institutions.

A situation where there is complete apathy for the church-state relationship is greater than separation.

But "complete apathy" is only a non-real, idealistic concept in western political philosophy, Similar like "bon sauvage" or "social contrat" or "dialectical materialism". Always are interactions. And in situation, when state have strength (physical, economical, political etc.) and church have to silent because "separation church-state" or "secular and non-denominational state" mean supremacy of state. Like in Bismark Germany in Kulturkampf period (this policy was ended only because popularity of socialismus growth up). Realisation part of fascist concept "nothing outside the state, nothing against the state".

And also here we have very important question to Pdx. Do eg, GBR or SWE, where religious leader was (and still is) also head of state and national church had influence on policy, where catholics were (and in few aspects still are) discriminated (eg. monarch in London cannot be catholic or few high offices also are locked for catholics) wouldn't have able option "Public Schools"? Or V3 will pretend blind and recognize that theocratic protestant monarchies are after all a separation.
The same Wikipedia article I linked above has a nice section on that topic as well. The short version is that practical separation is more important than formal separation. For example, although England's official faith is still Anglicanism, claiming that England or the United Kingdom lack a fairly robust separation of church and state is about as nonsensical as claiming that the United Kingdom isn't a democracy because it still has a monarchy. The secular, democratic elements of its political system are far more important than the vestigial remnants of a past where the monarchy wielded real power and Anglicanism was imposed by state policy.
 
Last edited:
  • 5
  • 1
Reactions:
Still.

Papal State isn't church. If Papal State was in Salt War (1482-1484) - this was war of Papal State. Not "church war". In War of Urbino (1517) Urbino and Venice had war with Papal State - not with Roman-Catholic Church.
The time period Victoria covers literally had the Papal States and Catholic Church go through one of its biggest debates in history on the temporal vs. spiritual authority of the Church. Trying to claim the Papal States was an example of separation of church and state is completely ridiculous and demonstrates a profound ignorance on the subject.
 
  • 3Like
  • 2
Reactions:
In christian ideology - church and state ALWAYS is separate... On fast - Gelasian Theory or the Theory of the Two Swords. Or Koneczny Theory about Civilization. Or anything other... Even in Caesaropapism State and Church are two, separate institutions...

I know, that modern western peoples were by generations indoctrinated by totalitarian ideology of democratism and liberalism, but we should be serious...

In may European Protestant monarchies the king was the head of the church.

And in many catholic nations the church are part of the state.
 
Or German Empire sent pastors to Africa as support to colonisation and extermination/asimilation :) Because "separation between church and state" ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Colonial time Germany isnt exactly a good example for seperation of church and state.

And I see you really WANT to misunderstand the term even if people did a good job explaining it. Your trolling ain't funny and your (mis)use of certain German words is trivializing Nazi ideology and simply disgusting. Very disturbing indeed.
 
  • 3
  • 1
Reactions:
Colonial time Germany isnt exactly a good example for seperation of church and state.

And I see you really WANT to misunderstand the term even if people did a good job explaining it. Your trolling ain't funny and your (mis)use of certain German words is trivializing Nazi ideology and simply disgusting. Very disturbing indeed.
Dude hasnt seen the light of day in ages, just dont feed him further. He is very smart, doesnt follow general consensus definitions and is upset the game doesnt conform to his world view.

Thinks that Liberalism is Fascism, doesnt understand the concept of Totalitarianism and uses Nazi-Terminology. By assuming they are a troll one is being generous.
 
  • 5
  • 2Like
  • 1
Reactions: