• 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:
Let's keep this thread on topic, specifically how things relate to the game.

Take your real world political discourse, and other ideological arguments you have to the OT forum. This is an information thread, not a political argument.

Thread will be kept open because some people are doing the right thing, let's keep it that way.
 
Overall this looks very interesting...one question:
Will the factions differ fundamentally from government type to government type and base ethic to base ethic? I'm wondering how you'll avoid making every government's play feel like a democracy...
 
  • 2
Reactions:
Overall this looks very interesting...one question:
Will the factions differ fundamentally from government type to government type and base ethic to base ethic? I'm wondering how you'll avoid making every government's play feel like a democracy...

I imagine one thing, that Authoritarian will have to deal with Factions a lot less than most other Ethos. Either they will form less or you can overrule them easier and make them be more compliant.
 
now what about combat update? in heart of iron we're needed to split our army while in this game we merge into single killer fleet

Also this. I think that part of the reason wars seem a little "bare" is because of the lack of strategic depth. If we parsed wars out into 2 or 3 meaningful battles, instead of just 1 Death stack vs Death stack, I think that wars would be a lot more entertaining like in EU4.
 
So basically, this is how I see it:

View attachment 223372

White = spiritualist
Black = materialist
Grey = either/neither

It's mostly like the political compass, but switching things around a bit to better reflect Stellaris.

Individualists/liberals get democracy, while authoritarian/collectivists get dictatorships/autocracy. Left-right needn't affect politics, but it should affect ethics.

I can see it has its flaws, of course (in particular, I think I've misallocated government types).


I suppose my main point is that if they aren't going to add another ethic, they should use authoritarian/collectivist vs liberal/individualist, or hierarchical/elitist vs egalitarian.
maybe if it was 3d it would work better but I digress authoritarian does at least more likely to use slavery than collectivists so it is a better fit but authoritarian and egalitarian are not quite right. but an improvement.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Again, ethoi are like the cultural attributes of a society and do not imply any sort of economic system.

I think that's a problem, actually.

Some people DO adopt a sort of economic primacy into their thinking, and so SHOULD have ethics which say (for example) that they believe in a radically communist system or a free market. This is why people latched those ideas onto individualist/collectivist, after all.

Let's just go through the 'pairs':

Materialist vs spiritualist determines what the POP thinks your religious policy should be, and both extremes imply a society - a theocracy or a technocracy.
Militarist vs pacifist says what they think the military policy ought to be, and both imply whether the military take an active role in politics or not.
xenophobe vs xenophile says what your foreign policy entails, and imply either a liberal or ethno-nationalist state.
and then we have collectivist vs individualist, which, well, seems to be trying to cover a dozen different jobs at once. And switching it to egalitarian vs authoritarian then becomes an incomprehensible pairing, since they don't actually match.

Where's the pair which determines a POP who's primary concern is the economy? Is he a materialist? But no, because that also covers extreme scientism, which says actually nothing about economics - both capitalism and communism are materialist ideas, in that they take increasing material well-being as their fundamental objective. And there's no reason that a religious civilization wouldn't also be interested in economic formations - the concept of the Protestant Work Ethic is a major thing in social science, after all, and there's no reason that you wouldn't believe that God expects his Children to be productive or share their wealth.

We know economic fundamentalist societies exist in the game - what else is a mega-corporation? Yet no-one apparently believes that they're how society should be run. Which ethical alignment wants to set one up? Where, to be blunt, are the Ferengi's ethics?
 
  • 3
Reactions:
Some people DO adopt a sort of economic primacy into their thinking, and so SHOULD have ethics which say (for example) that they believe in a radically communist system or a free market. This is why people latched those ideas onto individualist/collectivist, after all.

The problem with that is assigning the correct boni to any of those sides. Pretty much no matter what you do, some group is going to be very offended and if you assign the boni based on what economic research says they should be (so that you can justify why each ethos has those boni), you might end up with a very unbalanced system.

That said, if you could get a capitalism vs socialism ethos right, it would be pretty interesting, though that probably requires a deeper economic system to model either of them correctly (even the Victoria 2 system wasn't really deep enough for that).
 
  • 1
Reactions:
We know economic fundamentalist societies exist in the game - what else is a mega-corporation? Yet no-one apparently believes that they're how society should be run. Which ethical alignment wants to set one up? Where, to be blunt, are the Ferengi's ethics?

Interesting point, I think the other cultural ideology that is homeless is pirate port style societies that you see in a lot of fiction especially sci-fi. Cultures where life is cheap, everything is for sale but they're highly resistant to authority and control.

Essentially idividualistic, militaristic, capitalistic societies.
 
The problem with that is assigning the correct boni to any of those sides.

Honestly, I don't think that is much of a problem tbh.

Ethics are just beliefs. They don't need to be balanced, and the player doesn't really need to be given any control over them - it's what the POPs think, not what YOU think. You might be a happy little capitalist, but that really has no bearing on whether your POPs are all raving socialists or not.

Moreover, the POPs all being raving socialists has NO EFFECT on the running of the empire - policies and governments cover that. A bunch of deeply socialist POPs will be very upset if you implement free market policies... but that's just about all. They're not going to be setting up a commune, because the laws of your society pretty much prevent that from being a workable system even though they really believe in it. And the inverse is also true - a bunch of capitalist POPs cannot set up a market in a super-socialist empire, because there's no property rights. You can't trade anything because you don't own anything to trade, because the entire concept of ownership doesn't exist.

That makes policies the active part of the equation which needs balancing, not ethics. Each policy just needs to do one thing, which can always be a bonus - so, say you have 'free market' and 'planned economy' as mutually-exclusive policy options. Give one a bonus to mineral output and the other a bonus to money output. Socialist-y POPs will be happier under a planned economy, capitalist-y POPs will be happy under a market economy. That is all the POP ethic needs to do, and actually all it ought to do; it just needs to determine if they agree with the policies philosophically, regardless of whether the policy is actually good for them.

Think of it like this: POP ethics refer to the POP's beliefs. Factions determine the POP's political actions. Government ethics reflect the government's rhetoric. And policies reflect the government's actual actions. The government can't implement policies which are too far out from their rhetoric, but the rhetoric has no actual impact beyond that - just because I say I like markets means nothing whatsoever if I'm not legislating to introduce them. And just because I say I like markets isn't going to make a free-market POP particularly happy unless I also take actions to introduce a market economy.

So. POPs have ethics. These ethics determine which factions they join, which determines who runs the empire. That determines the ideology of the government, which determines which policy options are unlocked. And this can all be changed mid-game - a rise in one ethic can result in a change of government, resulting in a change in your empire's ethics, resulting in a bunch of legal changes. The ethics you pick at the start are simply the ethics of the party which is currently in power, they're no longer fixed for the duration of the game. Which would be a damned sight more interesting, and would also make international relations a lot more fluid - if your neighbour suddenly gets taken over by a militarist theocratic republic, then it could force you to change your whole strategy.
 
  • 4
  • 1
Reactions:
So. POPs have ethics. These ethics determine which factions they join, which determines who runs the empire. That determines the ideology of the government, which determines which policy options are unlocked. And this can all be changed mid-game - a rise in one ethic can result in a change of government, resulting in a change in your empire's ethics, resulting in a bunch of legal changes. The ethics you pick at the start are simply the ethics of the party which is currently in power, they're no longer fixed for the duration of the game. Which would be a damned sight more interesting, and would also make international relations a lot more fluid - if your neighbour suddenly gets taken over by a militarist theocratic republic, then it could force you to change your whole strategy.
I agree with pretty all of your post, but this bit especially is something I'm excited about.

I immensely enjoy the idea of being able to experience or witness political shifts like that- the complex stories it could result in will be pretty fantastic.

For instance, one of the civilizations I play in-game is a recreation/representation of one of my favourite fictional species I've created and written about. One iteration of their history involves what, in Stellaris terms, would probably be a Xenophile/Pacifist/Collectivist Enlightened Monarchy (with the monarch being randomly drawn from the various monk-like noble orders) getting attacked and eventually occupied by a far superior civilization which installs a puppet government. The government-in-exile eventually manages to retake their homeworld and core territories, but by the time they do so they've become jaded and willing to commit extremist acts to enact "justice"- and their restored regime is much harsher as a result, something like a shift to a Xenophile/Militarist/Collectivist or Fanatic Militarist/Collectivist Despotic Empire (in which the monarch has become an actual hereditary position).

If situations like that could play out in-game, I'd be utterly thrilled.
 
Assuming that Spiritualist stays somewhat the same - that is, a unifying ethos - how would that work? An empire-wide bonus to government ethics attraction?

Also, will any pop bonuses be tied to faction? That way, the members of your xenophile materialist faction could all get the bonuses for both, even though they would be individually one or the other.

I know more info on changing empire ethics is coming, but it will be interesting to see this in practice. In my current game, it is still relatively early days, and I've got three friendly neighbours around me, two stagnant ascendancies to the north, and to the east and south is the biggest fanatical purifier blob I have ever seen. My federation of three relatively large empires can't defeat them. We've made too many compromises already, too many retreats. They invade our space, and we fall back. They enslave and purge entire worlds, and we fall back. Not again! The line must be drawn here! This far, no further! And I will make them PAY for what they've done! ...ahem. Point is, I think under the new faction system, my friendly pacifist democratic foxes might be going a bit squirrelly (n.b. please make a squirrel race). If the militarists were to sweep into power, would that automatically change both my governing ethics and form of government (since I would no longer have access to the pacifist forms of government)? If so, that would be amazing! It's exactly what I'm going through as the player - starting out with the best of intentions for peaceful expansion and federation building, but then being driven crazy looking at those lost worlds in the hands of the enemy.
 
Question, in democracies, can there be a Senate which is composed of loyalists and all the various (unbanned) factions who will vote on policies and edicts?
 
  • 2
Reactions:
Question, in democracies, can there be a Senate which is composed of loyalists and all the various (unbanned) factions who will vote on policies and edicts?

Something like Victoria, with its upper and lower houses? That would be interesting. Even in autocracies you have an elite who need to be on board to make a policy work.
 
The new Egal/Autho duality sounds great, and will improve one of the most contentious parts of the ethics wheel. I will be a little controversial here though and say that those ethics weren't the biggest problem areas in the wheel, and instead I believe it's Xenophile/Xenophobe.

The main issue is they have far too much overlap with Militaristic/Pacifist and not enough substance to stand on by themselves. All the bonuses for the Xeno ethics are logically interchangeable with the warring ethics and feel completely arbitrary. The Xeno ethics in fact feel completely superfluous, and you could justify getting rid of them entirely and replacing them with a simple policy decision: being either pro or anti immigration. In practice, that's all they represent in-game. It's up to you to decide if immigration policy deserves a precious limited spot as a core tenet of each society in the galaxy, but personally I don't think so. Picking Xenophobe/Xenophile always feels like a waste to me because they are such minor policies elevated to the role of major tenets, and don't fit the large and grandiose ideologies which the other ethics represent.

On the long-term, human history is filled with discussion as to the role of Egalitarianism/Authoritarianism, Spiritualism/Materialism, and War/Peace. But as far as I'm aware there was little meaningful discussion about xenophobia, and it's a far more modern issue which only has meaningful context in the last few decades of human history. It's still an issue, of course, but nowhere near the same scale as the other ethics choices in Stellaris, which makes them feel flat. If we're talking about ethics which need an overhaul or outright replacement, it'd definitely be Xenophobe/Xenophile in my opinion.
 
  • 3
Reactions:
The new Egal/Autho duality sounds great, and will improve one of the most contentious parts of the ethics wheel. I will be a little controversial here though and say that those ethics weren't the biggest problem areas in the wheel, and instead I believe it's Xenophile/Xenophobe.

The main issue is they have far too much overlap with Militaristic/Pacifist and not enough substance to stand on by themselves. All the bonuses for the Xeno ethics are logically interchangeable with the warring ethics and feel completely arbitrary. The Xeno ethics in fact feel completely superfluous, and you could justify getting rid of them entirely and replacing them with a simple policy decision: being either pro or anti immigration. In practice, that's all they represent in-game. It's up to you to decide if immigration policy deserves a precious limited spot as a core tenet of each society in the galaxy, but personally I don't think so. Picking Xenophobe/Xenophile always feels like a waste to me because they are such minor policies elevated to the role of major tenets, and don't fit the large and grandiose ideologies which the other ethics represent.

On the long-term, human history is filled with discussion as to the role of Egalitarianism/Authoritarianism, Spiritualism/Materialism, and War/Peace. But as far as I'm aware there was little meaningful discussion about xenophobia, and it's a far more modern issue which only has meaningful context in the last few decades of human history. It's still an issue, of course, but nowhere near the same scale as the other ethics choices in Stellaris, which makes them feel flat. If we're talking about ethics which need an overhaul or outright replacement, it'd definitely be Xenophobe/Xenophile in my opinion.

What? An xenophile militarist regime will be just dandy with you conquering other FTL empires, but they will flip their shit if you start enslaving or purging them. Meanwhile an xenophobe won't care how backwards they are or what you do to them. A pacist xenophobe just wants to probe stupid non-ftl species in peace and don't like to be around any of them, a pacifist xenophile likes to watch and wants to be all up in their personal space for those integrated.

They are not mutually exchangeable at all. Xenophobe pacifist is not impossible (inward perfection and stability) nor xenophile militarist (expand then hug).
 
  • 1
Reactions:

it's all a completely arbitrary mess. For example, Pacifist Xenohobes cannot passively study aliens. They are okay with performing active studies, as long as it's not TOO active, as that's banned for them. For first contact protocol (aggresive/passive), xenphobes are naturally passive and xenophiles are naturally aggressive, and the game makes specific exceptions so Pacifist Phobes and Militarist Philes can exist without hating themselves. Xenophiles hate the re-settlement policy, even if there are no aliens in the empire. If you look at at their preferred policies, xenophiles are naturally pro-immigration, pro-individualism, and pacifist. It's not a single cohesive ethic, and neither is xenophobia.

Even if you perform mental gymnastics to justify it it, it's not intuitive or natural at all. The Xeno ethics simply don't work or mesh well with the rest of the game, as I see it.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
it's all a completely arbitrary mess. For example, Pacifist Xenohobes cannot passively study aliens. They are okay with performing active studies, as long as it's not TOO active, as that's banned for them. For first contact protocol (aggresive/passive), xenphobes are naturally passive and xenophiles are naturally aggressive, and the game makes specific exceptions so Pacifist Phobes and Militarist Philes can exist without hating themselves. Xenophiles hate the re-settlement policy, even if there are no aliens in the empire. If you look at at their preferred policies, xenophiles are naturally pro-immigration, pro-individualism, and pacifist. It's not a single cohesive ethic, and neither is xenophobia.

Even if you perform mental gymnastics to justify it it, it's not intuitive or natural at all. The Xeno ethics simply don't work or mesh well with the rest of the game, as I see it.

I completely agree that any xenophobe should have all xeno intervention options open, since covert infiltration ala They Live is both pretty bloodless and pretty xenophobic.

That said:

A lot of policies have some overlap, such as free migration which also ties into individualism. Only individualists will hate you for not having free movement. Xenophiles just get angry if you specifically target xenos and prohibit them from moving.

Re-settlement is hated because it is forced upon them. Forcibly moving aliens (instead of letting them migrate) is pretty much pulling a Trail of Tears. A non-individualist will be fine with it as long as you do it to everyone.

Xenophiles just don't want special rules for xenos, xenophobes do want more restricted rules for xenos. One example is that a non-militarist xenophobe doesn't want to destroy planets entirely, but they would be fine with removing the population (full orbital bombardment is disabled even for xenophobes when not also militarist, xenophile militarists will be fine with pulling no punches since all is fair in love and war)

Being an xenophile warmonger actually works well, since it provides long term happiness to your population once the conquered people quiet down a bit about the whole interplanetary war thing.

Edit: And it's not just about migration, xenophobes do not want xenos in charge of anything, or even able to vote.
 
Last edited:
TBH I feel like Xenophobia and Xenophile isn't really an ethos in the sense of fitting to be placed on the axis along with others. It also does not affect government types.

I feel like Xenophobia/phile should be a separate toggle on empire creation, while freeing up their axis to further flesh out the ethea model.
 
  • 2
  • 1
Reactions:
Status
Not open for further replies.