• 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:
Will it be possible to build broadcast stations (or send "spies") that will change ethics of another's empire neighbour planets close to yours?
 
  • 1
Reactions:
That does not matter, Paradox clearly said that egalitarianism in Stellaris is the support for equal rights and opportunities for everyone. Which is not the same thing as everyone being completely identical and equal.

It does matter. If Paradox defined "tomato soup" as "the support for equal rights and opportunities for everyone", would you be happy with them calling it "tomato soup" instead?

Definitions matter.

Which completely ignores Paradox's definition of Egalitarianism, wanting people to be identical is not their egalitarianism.

That's because Paradox's definition is not a very good definition. It's based on how the word is used in terms of 2016 Earth politics rather than homing in a core philosophical idea which can be applied throughout the ages.

Hence it is unsuitable for use in a dichotomy, and very unsuitable as an opposite to "authoritarian". At least collectivist vs individualist was a very clear dichotomy, given that there is a very clear opposing idea present (individual vs the community).

No, Authoritarianism is obedience to a central authority at the expense of personal rights/freedom. So it is more than a means to the ends it is the relationship between the individual and what ever central authority is specified.

And obedience to Castro made everyone equal.

Personal rights+freedom are individualism/liberalism. They are NOT egalitarianism, because personal rights give people the freedom to form their own hierarchies.

I mean, who enforces the "level-playing field"? What's to stop me making a stupid amount of money and keeping it? Taxes? OK, and what if I don't pay my taxes (i.e. I behave with disobedience)?

I get sent to prison. The opposite of "obedience to a central authority" is "obedience to no authority", and hence, we have anarchism. Anarchism is the opposite of authoritarianism.

They absolutely did not make everyone equal, they had elites who had far more power and wealth then the common people. I would advise that you avoid taking Soviet, Chinese, or North Korean propaganda as fact.

Political power? Yes. But 99% of people were equal, and the other 1% were corrupt state officials (though their wealth is usually not monetary - they could take what they wanted, but they didn't tie it up in investments, and nor did they do anything too extravagant). If they were not corrupt, they would still be authoritarians, because this necessary to ensure that equality is maintained. I.e. if you let people do what they want, you get rich people, poor people, and anti-egalitarians.

The reason 100% equality cannot be achieved is largely down to human nature, but communist regimes are the closest we ever got.

I am not a Marxist in any form, but that doesn't change the fact that socialist or communist regimes were egalitarian only in propaganda and nowhere else.

So then what does a truly egalitarian society look like? I'm going to say humans are incapable of that, so let's talk of aliens for a moment.

I think we're looking at a community which is as homogenous as possible, i.e. collective consciousness, everyone looks the same, where those who are different are either re-educated, killed, or cast out. That is the most "egal(equal)-itarian" society imaginable. When we say "I'm an egalitarian" in 2016, we mean "compared to the status quo, I seek more equality", but most human egalitarians would look remarkably individualist compared with what is theoretically possible.
 
  • 6
  • 1
Reactions:
One question: Has the leader of a faction any effect in the faction and/or the faction in the leader?
 
  • 11
Reactions:
That's the whole point. The Ethics wheel missing one spin. Both Authoritarian\Egalitarian or Collectivist\Individualist alone are clearly not enough to describe even human ethics. Aliens are obviously out of question. I dunno why PDX is so stubborn about it, the faster they add another pair, the less work they have to do in the future.
In current form this debate cannot be resolved because all sides are right and wrong to some extend at the same time.

Completely agree.
 
  • 2
Reactions:
Isn't Authoritarianism a belief to an ordered society though? Belief in morals, hierarchical structures like families, traditions, religion, seniority, corporate bosses, state-and-citizens, lord-and-serfs, employer-and-employees, master-and-freemen-and-slaves... Because Authoritarians believe without these structures there can be only chaos.

Egalitarianism... i guess it depends how we define the word whether it opposed to Authoritarianism or not. Original Anarchism is arguably a Radical Egalitarian ideology, one of their base principle is that in order for an individual to reach absolute freedom, it must be absolutely accepted that an Individual can *never* hold even a tiny bit of power/authority over another Individual. This principle makes it directly opposed to every form of Authoritarianism (it also renders The Capitalist employer-worker relation incompatible with this definition of egalitarianism, which is why Anarcho-Capitalism is oxymoron to some lol). Though other Egalitarian Philosophies still maintain that power is acceptable as long as the trades are equal, which is yes it would be problematic because of the nature of power itself. At least this later type in some ways can pair with Authoritarianism.

About Communism though, if we want to stubbornly define Egalitarianism as absolutist ideology where everyone have to be equal in every way possible, then Communist Egalitarianism is really not an absolutist Egalitarian ideology (Just to clear out confusions, i'm not talking about Communist Marxist-Leninist States, but its utopia, its ideal). Communism actually based on the idea of individual liberation (after all, one of the propaganda commies love to use is "you have nothing to lose but your chains!"), an ideal where *nobody* have to suffer just for a bread and some basic entertainment. Of course this sounds like utopia since i'm indeed talking about utopia, but point is, in this Communist Ideal you're actually free to do almost anything you can already do in a liberal society, as long as you don't exploit someone else' labour.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
That's the whole point. The Ethics wheel missing one spin. Both Authoritarian\Egalitarian or Collectivist\Individualist alone are clearly not enough to describe even human ethics. Aliens are obviously out of question. I dunno why PDX is so stubborn about it, the faster they add another pair, the less work they have to do in the future.
In current form this debate cannot be resolved because all sides are right and wrong to some extend at the same time.

It would be nice to have this split off into two separate opposing ethics.

So rather than authoritarian/egalitarian, we could have collectivist/individualist (social obligations) and hierarchical/egalitarian (distribution of power).

The result is that you can represent these types of government:

Hierarchical collectivist: monarchy (+spiritualism)/fascist dictatorship (+xenophobe)/communist dictatorship (+materialist)

Hierarchical individualist: Libertarianism/anarcho-capitalism

Egalitarian collectivist: Hive mind (when they eventually implement it) and tribal communism

Egalitarian individualist: Liberal democracy, basically (centrist/centre-right/centre-left depending on whether one of the two is fanatical).

Not perfect, but I think it would be an improvement. For now, I think changing "authoritarian" to "hierarchical" would make the most sense.
 
Last edited:
  • 4
Reactions:
That's because Paradox's definition is not a very good definition. It's based on how the word is used in terms of 2016 Earth politics rather than homing in a core philosophical idea which can be applied throughout the ages.

It makes much more sense to me that they would use it in the way it actually is used in real societies - to refer to a society where individuals are equal before and under the law with equal protection and benefit of the law, to borrow one formulation - than to make up a rather implausible definition that only resembles the way the word is used in authoritarian propaganda.
 
  • 3
  • 1
Reactions:
There is a world outside of America.

What a unique and sublime insight. I had previously assumed that the only thing that existed beyond the borders of the United States was primal chaos haunted by the likes of Tiamat and Leviathan. But now you tell me that landmasses and nation-states exist beyond it? Fascinating.

In fact, I even discovered there's this international governing body (of authority more nominal than actual, admittedly) whose documents occasionally inspire a sense of déjà vu...

United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights said:
All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

EDIT: Ooh, and this "Europe" place that decided somewhere in the 20th century to stop killing one another and set up a sorta tenuous union...

Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union said:
Everyone is equal before the law.
 
  • 4
  • 2
Reactions:
It makes much more sense to me that they would use it in the way it actually is used in real societies - to refer to a society where individuals are equal before and under the law with equal protection and benefit of the law, to borrow one formulation - than to make up a rather implausible definition that only resembles the way the word is used in authoritarian propaganda.

I'm not making up a definition at all. I'm trying to pick out core concepts so that we can discover what terms would work best in the context of the game world.

I mean look, how is a fanatical egalitarian any different from a moderate egalitarian right now? Absolute equality before the law vs some equality before the law? How off Earth does that apply to alien societies??? Even I can't imagine what the difference is in real life, let alone in an abstract sci-fi game.

I'm not saying the definition is entirely wrong, but I am saying that there are better words out there. Is that so controversial?

What a unique and sublime insight. I had previously assumed that the only thing that existed beyond the borders of the United States was primal chaos haunted by the likes of Tiamat and Leviathan. But now you tell me that landmasses and nation-states exist beyond it? Fascinating.

In fact, I even discovered there's this international governing body (of authority more nominal than actual, admittedly) whose documents occasionally inspire a sense of déjà vu...



EDIT: Ooh, and this "Europe" place that decided somewhere in the 20th century to stop killing one another and set up a sorta tenuous union...

An who invented the United Nations... :rolleyes:
 
  • 2
  • 1
Reactions:
Equality must mean something different to you than it does to me. Because appropriating the means of production from capitalists and purging them seems like a pretty authoritarian and egalitarian thing to do.
It's not authoritarian because it relies on the popular will. You're just viewing it like "in my context people can own things and therefore when the state takes it that's evil!". But this has little to do with authoritarianism. If the law says that the means of production cannot be privately owned, but when you join the workforce you obtain a share in the business for example (a more pure socialism), then that's the law, that's not "authoritarian" if it's a law passed by popular will. The same honestly goes for if the state decides to nationalise something. The authoritarian aspect of the soviet union ond other one-party states is the whole "one party" thing, the rulers are NOT enacting popular will as communicated by the people, they're enacting their own will without limits. And socialism may be socially egalitarian, but if you have an authoritarian one party stae it is not politically egalitarian which is the point.

Yes, but you're missing a word. Let me rephrase your statement: Authoritarianism is obedience to a central authority at the expense of Liberty, not at the expense of equality. Which is exactly why I think it's so strange that Europeans or anybody else would contrast authority with equality instead of liberty like I'm so used to seeing. The more authority a government has over people, the less liberty they have or at least the less secure their liberty is.
Political liberty = political equality.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • 6
  • 1
Reactions:
I have to disagree, hierarchical individualism would be more akin to tribalism or a mafia state.

Libertarianism would under the current system be more of a materialist individualist ethos, at least in theory.

Libertarians/Anarcho-Capitalist are indeed fanatically opposed to a directly enforced hierarchy but they do not oppose "voluntary" hierarchy like contract workers and the usual stuffs you see in capitalism today.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
They can't just add more ethos to the wheel and call it done. Each ethos represents a lot more content than just some modifiers; they have an enormous impact on your available responses to events, and new ethos that didn't have that integration into gameplay would be lacking at best. That necessitates at the minimum a bunch more possible paths in event chains. There are also unique technologies and structures associated with each ethos.

I'm not making up a definition at all. I'm trying to pick out core concepts so that we can discover what terms would work best in the context of the game world.

I mean look, how is a fanatical egalitarian any different from a moderate egalitarian right now? Absolute equality before the law vs some equality before the law? How off Earth does that apply to alien societies??? Even I can't imagine what the difference is in real life, let alone in an abstract sci-fi game.

I'm not saying the definition is entirely wrong, but I am saying that there are better words out there. Is that so controversial?

A fanatic egalitarian would be opposed to a violation of an individuals rights even at enormous expense to society.

A modern-day example might be controversies over the use of eminent domain. An egalitarian and a fanatic egalitarian would have radically different standards on the acceptable basis for the use of eminent domain to evict people or otherwise confiscate property for a societal benefit.

Even in the OP, Wiz said that the terms are not perfect, but they believe they fit better than other terms; it's not enough to say 'well i'm not sure it's the right one', you've got to pick what WOULD be better and then defend that against criticism.
 
Last edited:
  • 1
Reactions:
@Wiz

Over all really really love the changes as they give a lot more life to ethics/factions and I think they will really improve game play for most empire types.

However for roleplaying for some empire types will become problematic without fanatic/multiple trait types.

Say for fanatical purifiers. Will the militarist/authoritarian pops be upset when I start purging the filthy xenos?

How about in say a fanatic authoritarian/materialist. Will the materialists be upset with my slaving?

Or will it be more like only xenophiles be upset with xeno-purges and only egalitarians are upset by slaving?
 
....that's a good question, actually. It might be that all the happiness modifiers for things like slavery are moved from the pops to the factions.

I imagine that everyone BUT xenophobes would be upset by purges, though...
 
I have to disagree, hierarchical individualism would be more akin to tribalism or a mafia state.

Libertarianism would under the current system be more of a materialist individualist ethos, at least in theory.

Ah, but in a 100% anarcho-capitalist society, you get a mafia state!

Because CEOs hold all the power. In a space game, I imagine this to be a sort of "trade federation" or other such radical capitalist species.

As you point out, this is only really true if we assume they're materialist. So what would spiritualists look like where social obligations are to the individual and power is hierarchical? Well, let's take our trade federation and say they seek spiritual enlightenment above all else.

So we have religious leaders springing up into positions of spiritual authority based on the merits of their ideas (which they "sell" to everyone in an attempt to gain "spiritual wealth) - the purpose of this society is seeking individual enlightenment, so everyone focuses on ideas which bring them satisfaction. I think I can actually imagine it now. Basically a sort of diverse philosopher society with various competing ideas (I say philosopher and not theocrat because I expect the clash of ideas would lead individual people to change their minds more often). And the leaders of this nation would be a sort of "council of philosophers".

Maybe you disagree with that. I admitted that the dichotomies I proposed are not perfect. You're right to point out that every combo needs to be accounted for - if they cannot be, then there's something wrong with the ethics.
 
  • 5
Reactions:
It would be nice to have this split off into two separate opposing ethics.

So rather than authoritarian/egalitarian, we could have collectivist/individualist (social obligations) and hierarchical/egalitarian (distribution of power).

The result is that you can represent these types of government:

Hierarchical collectivist: monarchy (+spiritualism)/fascist dictatorship (+xenophobe)/communist dictatorship (+materialist)

Hierarchical individualist: Libertarianism/anarcho-capitalism

Egalitarian collectivist: Hive mind (when they eventually implement it) and anarchist hippie communes

Egalitarian individualist: Liberal democracy, basically (centrist/centre-right/centre-left depending on whether one of the two is fanatical).

Not perfect, but I think it would be an improvement. For now, I think changing "authoritarian" to "hierarchical" would make the most sense.

Yeah, but then you'd need mechanics to govern collectivist/individualist, which have since been assigned to authoritarian/egalitarian. I get what you're saying from a philosophical standpoint, but from a PRACTICAL standpoint, it's just difficult to implement right now, right?

The renaming might work, but it adds more problems. Does Authoritarian fit exactly for what they're going for? Of course not. But it does a decent job of getting the gist across of what they mean.
The knife cuts both ways. What does hierarchical mean, and how fine grained does it have to be applied? For instance, I have a boss at my job, who has a boss, all the way up to the president of the US (as a federal employee). That's definitively hierarchical, and most places have a similar hierarchy. Does that mean most of our societies are hierarchical? I would say that yes, they are INHERENTLY hierarchical, as a result of being organized. I would challenge you to find a functioning completely non-hierarchical form of government, especially on such a large scale.

All that said though, I DO agree that "Authoritarian" leaves a bad taste in my mouth. It seems to be at the very least a contested word, and one that often has a lot more moral, historical, and ethical baggage than its compatriot "Egalitarian". And your system does look pretty good, my reservations about "Hierarchical" aside.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
A fanatic egalitarian would be opposed to a violation of an individuals rights even at enormous expense to society.

A modern-day example might be controversies over the use of eminent domain. An egalitarian and a fanatic egalitarian would have radically different standards on the acceptable basis for the use of eminent domain to evict people or otherwise confiscate property for a societal benefit.

Even in the OP, Wiz said that the terms are not perfect, but they believe they fit better than other terms; it's not enough to say 'well i'm not sure it's the right one', you've got to pick what WOULD be better and then defend that against criticism.

So why can you be a fanatical egalitarian who supports xeno slavery?

Individualist/collectivist was better in my opinion, because individualist xenophobes can be compared to 19th century America (slavery of foreigners but rights for citizens). You don't have anywhere near the same degree of clash.
 
  • 2
Reactions:
I hope we get a new easter egg event to commemorate Collectivism vs. Individualism II: Egalitarian Boogaloo
 
  • 5
Reactions:
Status
Not open for further replies.