• 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:
Exciting! Banks is gonna be 'the' patch. Traditions sounds interesting too, they sound very EU4 like.

Wiz said:
while an alien empire purging pops of a particular species will massively increase the attraction for xenophobic for the species being purged

Will we be notified when this is happening, if it's relevant to pops in our empire? The only way to tell if this is happening currently is if you periodically check AI planets.

Will we be notified if conditions change that effect ethics drift, especially if it's not something we've initiated?
 
>> Developers clearly spell out their intentions and reasons behind a change
>> "No this is bad do it my way instead!"

What if I want a Authoritarian utopia where everyone have everything while i'm the Benevolent Dictator? Authoritarian is not oposed to Egalitarian in any way. This name don't make any sense. Hell, even Space Soviet Union can't be made because his communism is an authoritarian egalitarian regime.
 
  • 14
  • 3
Reactions:
Exciting! Banks is gonna be 'the' patch. Traditions sounds interesting too, they sound very EU4 like.



Will we be notified when this is happening, if it's relevant to pops in our empire? The only way to tell if this is happening currently is if you periodically check AI planets.

Will we be notified if conditions change that effect ethics drift, especially if it's not something we've initiated?

More (optional) information about what's going on in other empires is one of my aims for 1.5 (that is not a 100% ironclad promise though).
 
  • 23
  • 6
Reactions:
It seems "liberal option" is either non-fanatic egalitarian, or default none-of-above (neither authoritarian nor egalitarian).
Moderate Egalitarian is equality of opportunity - classical liberal
Fanatic Egalitarian is equality of outcome - european socialist / american liberal
Both are in some way equality.

Except equality of outcome is authoritian.

Demanding that at least 40% of engineers and sewer workers should be female while 40% of nurses and daycare personnel should be male is authoritarian.
 
  • 30
  • 9
Reactions:
More (optional) information about what's going on in other empires is one of my aims for 1.5 (that is not a 100% ironclad promise though).
If you add something like a ledger, please make it easier to navigate than in CKII and EUIV. EUIV's isn't so bad, but it has problems. On the other hand, CKII's I barely use because of how difficult and time-consuming it is to find the information I want. Both could use some updates, to be honest.
 
Last edited:
  • 9
  • 1
Reactions:
i hope by this time it will be possible to stick with version 1.4 if 1.5 comes out.. for stellaris i really start to hate the auto update "so called feature" from Steam

while interesting changes, but it looks very difficult to polish this update/change before release

and i dont want to be part of the "bug-hunting faction" no more, big sorry PDX

well, this is all based on the last experience i made with PDX and maybe you surprising me very much, who knows and still i love your game and like your work, dont mess it up please :) so now go and make space even greater again!!!

You've been able to do that since the game's release:

https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/foru...evert-stellaris-to-a-previous-version.954474/

You can revert to 1.0.3 if you'd like.
 
In my opinion, Internal Policy was one, if not the most, annoying aspect of the game so I love this DD and the changes suggested. Now I just cross my fingers hoping that things work as planned :):):)
 
  • 3
Reactions:
What if I want a Authoritarian utopia where everyone have everything while i'm the Benevolent Dictator? Authoritarian is not oposed to Egalitarian in any way. This name don't make any sense. Hell, even Space Soviet Union can't be made because his communism is an authoritarian egalitarian regime.
The IRL Soviet Union was not "egalitarian" in reality, is the problem with that objection. It was controlled by an elite that claimed to be acting for the people but in reality were not.

As for an Authoritarian Utopia... that's, uh, basically the Enlightened Monarchy. Authoritarian as hell, but focused on the good of the people.
 
  • 27
  • 3
  • 2
Reactions:
Well, no point arguing about interpretation.
Debating and there's always a point in debating, by debating we explore issues and learn to think in new ways.

Except equality of outcome is authoritian.

Demanding that at least 40% of engineers and sewer workers should be female while 40% of nurses and daycare personnel should be male is authoritarian.
Not nessecerily, if the decision is taken by a dicrect demicracy then I have a very hard time to see how it would be authoritarian.
You can't absolutely define these things. Take the collectivist anarchists for an example their version of anarchism is very different from say Ayn Rand (not a philosopher I know) or Robert Nozick's ideas. At the end of the day we got to accept that words are always open to interpretation, their meaning are context dependent.

What if I want a Authoritarian utopia where everyone have everything while i'm the Benevolent Dictator? Authoritarian is not oposed to Egalitarian in any way. This name don't make any sense. Hell, even Space Soviet Union can't be made because his communism is an authoritarian egalitarian regime.
Then you have taken upon yourself a position where you have more power than anyone else thus it can be argued that it's not egalitarian. You and they are not equal before the aw and that's the core of egalitarianism.
 
  • 19
  • 6
Reactions:
More (optional) information about what's going on in other empires is one of my aims for 1.5 (that is not a 100% ironclad promise though).

Fair enough.

One more question, if you don't mind: are ethics the only factor that affects whether or not a pop will join a faction, or are the others - e.g. being on a new colony, working a certain type of tile etc?

Some of the ones in the screenshot don't look especially ethos specific, like the Stellar Pioneers Committee or the Mercantile guild.
 
Will factions cause problems if not cared for? Will Spiritualists start to hate me when I mass-produce robots and so on? That'd be some awesome RP potential if expanded on.
 
Fair enough.

One more question, if you don't mind: are ethics the only factor that affects whether or not a pop will join a faction, or are the others - e.g. being on a new colony, working a certain type of tile etc?

Some of the ones in the screenshot don't look especially ethos specific, like the Stellar Pioneers Committee or the Mercantile guild.

There are other factors as well, and not all factions are tied to a specific ethic.
 
  • 24
Reactions:
Will factions cause problems if not cared for? Will Spiritualists start to hate me when I mass-produce robots and so on? That'd be some awesome RP potential if expanded on.

This will be covered in detail in a later dev diary but yes.
 
  • 20
  • 6
Reactions:
The IRL Soviet Union was not "egalitarian" in reality, is the problem with that objection. It was controlled by an elite that claimed to be acting for the people but in reality were not.

As for an Authoritarian Utopia... that's, uh, basically the Enlightened Monarchy. Authoritarian as hell, but focused on the good of the people.
Not really realistic though, an enlightened despotism is not a government form, it's just another dictatorship/monarchy which happens to have a benevolent ruler at the head. The problem is that just because the current ruler is benevolent that is far from certain to stay the case after a couple if successions.

I again direct you to legend of galactic heroes, Yang Wenli makes the case for the dangers of such a system very well.
 
  • 4
  • 1
Reactions:
Debating and there's always a point in debating, by debating we explore issues and learn to think in new ways.


Not nessecerily, if the decision is taken by a dicrect demicracy then I have a very hard time to see how it would be authoritarian.
You can't absolutely define these things. Take the collectivist anarchists for an example their version of anarchism is very different from say Ayn Rand (not a philosopher I know) or Robert Nozick's ideas. At the end of the day we got to accept that words are always open to interpretation, their meaning are context dependent.


Then you have taken upon yourself a position where you have more power than anyone else thus it can be argued that it's not egalitarian. You and they are not equal before the aw and that's the core of egalitarianism.

A direct democracy can be authoritarian, it's all about how much detail and force you use to force people to comply to one standard of thinking and behaviour, especially in their private lives.

Totalitarian states tend to be more so, yes, but the majority can oppress the minority, sometimes arguably necessarily to curb criminal behaviour putting others at risk, but sometimes also just because the majority can be jerks.

Stating that a certain percentage of a specific population must apply for a certain job, or a certain percentage of people taking a job must have the right gender or ethical background, is using authoritarian force. Saying that anyone regardless of background has the right to be anything is empowering individual agency.
 
  • 8
  • 3
Reactions:
Not really realistic though, an enlightened despotism is not a government form, it's just another dictatorship/monarchy which happens to have a benevolent ruler at the head. The problem is that just because the current ruler is benevolent that is far from certain to stay the case after a couple if successions.
Which, given what we're being told about Factions, Ethos drift, etc, is an entirely possible scenario.

The Enlightened Monarchy is a government form guided by, in part, pacifist ideals. That's a prerequisite for taking it, your government needs to be pacifist.

If your government stops being pacifist somehow, you'd presumably need to change to a different form of government.
 
  • 5
Reactions:
The flavor text for Egalitarian doesn't explain who they are, it tells us only who they oppose. Quite unlucky if the changes are meant to ease confusion.
 
  • 2
  • 2
Reactions:
I love the changes to pop ethics and factions. Seems like it's going to be so much better. I'm not a big fan of the changing to Authoritarian and Egalitarian though.
 
  • 3
  • 1
Reactions:
Status
Not open for further replies.