• 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:
Egalitarianism is derived from the French word "Eqal" which means "Equal."
The French word you are talking about is "égal" with a "g", not a "q"
 
Can the ethics of a pop evolve over time? I'm not talking about ethics resulting from some events in the game, but is there a mechanic where a pop's ethics independent of scripted events can actually change? Can a "xenophile" pop change to not having that trait, or become "xenophobe?" I ask this question because factions can emerge in empires that can be very difficult to get rid of, even impossible to change over a very long period of time.
 
Can the ethics of a pop evolve over time? I'm not talking about ethics resulting from some events in the game, but is there a mechanic where a pop's ethics independent of scripted events can actually change? Can a "xenophile" pop change to not having that trait, or become "xenophobe?" I ask this question because factions can emerge in empires that can be very difficult to get rid of, even impossible to change over a very long period of time.

I'd love to see a pacifist xenophile empire have all their diplomatic plans crumble apart because they neglected their factions and suddenly there's a massive uprising of a militarist faction which stages a coup of the government.

Hopefully we'll be able to influence factions within other empires (and not just ones of our own ethics) it'd be great to be able to play a diplomatic game, where you encourage pacifist takeovers of other empires, and ally/federation them up without needing to fire a shot if you play it right.
 
  • 5
Reactions:
It's not cataclysmic, it's simply wrong. Objectively so. It's not about the tone of it, really - although it could bear improvement, the fact still remains that Egalitarianism is not opposed by Authoritarianism. The opposite of Authoritarianism is Libertarianism. The opposite of Egalitarianism is Elitism or Exceptionalism. They've essentially traded one pair of Ethics that fitted, into two Ethics that not only doesn't fit, but that aren't even philosophical opposites by any means.

Collectivism and Individualism are relevant ethical considerations that are dichotomous to eachother and mutually exclusive in practice, and if one assumes Slavery to also include willing slavery or servitude, this attempt to prettify collectivism becomes entirely unnecessary.

Collectivism vs. Individualism made perfect sense in every way; mechanically, narratively, philosophically. Authoritarianism vs. Egalitarianism doesn't make a lick of sense in any of them. This has been covered and detailed extensively and exhaustively throughout countless threads here and elsewhere. That's why it's so mind-boggling that they still went ahead with it. It takes a serious level of pig-headed stubbornness and doubling-down on political illiteracy to do that after being so thoroughly steamrolled every single time it's discussed.

Is Paradox a house of yes-men? Is the corporate culture within the company truly this strong? It's like someone's stuck in an echo-chamber while there's a library bus from the political sciences & philosophy university blaring it's horns just outside the door, begging for attention. I just don't get it.

Please, Paradox board members, if you want to see this game succeed you need to listen to this guy.
 
  • 8
  • 5
Reactions:
Factions in authoritarian empires should totally be run like aristocratic houses of the court.

A noble house wouldn't really have that much effect on ethics divergence for the general populace though. Not all autocracies have nobility either. In fact the strongest autocratic regimes in modern times prefer not to have a limitation in who can be promoted to a status of political relevance (by membership in the ruling party for instance) as that allows the autocrat to replace disloyal supporters with loyal ones much more easily, adding to the autocrat's power. Most modern autocracies would prefer this system to an established nobility anyway, as that leads to a pull towards oligarchy at the expense of the ruler.

Source:
(Mesquita, Bruce Bueno De. The Logic of Political Survival. Cambridge, MA: MIT, 2003. Print.).
 
Can the ethics of a pop evolve over time? I'm not talking about ethics resulting from some events in the game, but is there a mechanic where a pop's ethics independent of scripted events can actually change? Can a "xenophile" pop change to not having that trait, or become "xenophobe?" I ask this question because factions can emerge in empires that can be very difficult to get rid of, even impossible to change over a very long period of time.
If you're asking if POP ethics ever just randomly change, probably not.

But if you'd read the thread more thoroughly, you'd know that POPs will have their ethics influenced by all sorts of environmental factors, meaning they can change based just on gameplay (not specific event triggers).
 
Please, Paradox board members, if you want to see this game succeed you need to listen to this guy.
Except that they're wrong.

I liked Collectivism vs. Individualism.

But I also know I hated the fluff for Individualism (That it was so intensely Randian was a huge turn off), and I know loads of people never understood why Collectivism made you a slaver. They were both a confused mishmash of ideas.

Authoritarianism vs. Egalitarianism is, as has been expounded on, only situationally wrong based on your exposure to different definitions of Egalitarianism. Americans are far more inclined to see it as a bad match. Ultimately, though, it gets the idea across better than the old way, and it doesn't need to be perfect because this is just a game, not an actual Political Simulator.
 
  • 10
  • 5
Reactions:
I can't believe I actually made an account for this, but here it goes:
To me, it seems that the intended focus is government involvement.
Authoritarian as an ethic favours the guiding government, which seeks to directly influence the daily lives of its subjects to enforce the 'common ideas'. Both communism and fascism, with Soviet & Nazi being the common base references, are in fact forms of authoritarian governments.
That does mean that Egalitarian is wrong. The opposite of the above Authoririan is, in fact, Libertarian.
Libertarian in the non-political-party sense, means the state's main purpose is to safeguard the freedom of its subjects.

If anything, Egalitarian is a socialist view, because it favours equality among individuals.
Elitism is the opposite, favouring a certain a certain group above others based on certain defined criteria (usually based on other ethoi)
*

Been saying this since the thread started, but half the people in this thread don't seem to get it.
 
  • 4
  • 1
Reactions:
It's not cataclysmic, it's simply wrong. Objectively so. It's not about the tone of it, really - although it could bear improvement, the fact still remains that Egalitarianism is not opposed by Authoritarianism. The opposite of Authoritarianism is Libertarianism. The opposite of Egalitarianism is Elitism or Exceptionalism. They've essentially traded one pair of Ethics that fitted, into two Ethics that not only doesn't fit, but that aren't even philosophical opposites by any means.

Collectivism and Individualism are relevant ethical considerations that are dichotomous to eachother and mutually exclusive in practice, and if one assumes Slavery to also include willing slavery or servitude, this attempt to prettify collectivism becomes entirely unnecessary.

Collectivism vs. Individualism made perfect sense in every way; mechanically, narratively, philosophically. Authoritarianism vs. Egalitarianism doesn't make a lick of sense in any of them. This has been covered and detailed extensively and exhaustively throughout countless threads here and elsewhere. That's why it's so mind-boggling that they still went ahead with it. It takes a serious level of pig-headed stubbornness and doubling-down on political illiteracy to do that after being so thoroughly steamrolled every single time it's discussed.

Is Paradox a house of yes-men? Is the corporate culture within the company truly this strong? It's like someone's stuck in an echo-chamber while there's a library bus from the political sciences & philosophy university blaring it's horns just outside the door, begging for attention. I just don't get it.

Very well put Luckmann, but Like I told the other guy I've been saying this the thread started and Wiz popped in here just to tell me that "only polisci freshmen and internet charts believe libertarianism is the opposite of authoritarianism."

Good luck getting through to this bunch. >.<
 
Last edited:
  • 5
  • 3
Reactions:
Like I told the other guy, Luckmann I've been saying this the thread started and Wiz popped in here to tell me that "only polisci freshmen and internet charts believe libertarianism is the opposite of authoritarianism."

Good luck getting through to this bunch. >.<
I mean, you're blatantly ignoring the people who have provided reasons for why that statement is correct and why Libertarianism has nothing to do with Authoritarianism, so.... *fart noise*
 
  • 3
  • 3
Reactions:
I mean, you're blatantly ignoring the people who have provided reasons for why that statement is correct and why Libertarianism has nothing to do with Authoritarianism, so.... *fart noise*

Funny, because it seems to me that you're blatantly ignoring the people who have provided reasons for why Egalitarianism has nothing to do with Authoritarianism, so.... *fart noise*
xD
 
  • 3
  • 3
Reactions:
Funny, because it seems to me that you're blatantly ignoring the people who have provided reasons for why Egalitarianism has nothing to do with Authoritarianism, so.... *fart noise*
xD
The whole problem with this belief that Authoritarianism vs. Egalitarianism is wrong is that it's only situationally wrong- substantial arguments have been provided backing up the ways it can be correct. That inherently means that arguments that its wrong, objectively wrong at that, are false. It isn't wrong if taken in the right context. Unless you insist on taking it out of context, it works fine.

It's like arguing that calling something scrambled eggs if it doesn't have cheese in it is objectively wrong- eggs can be scrambled eggs without cheese if that's the recipe you're following.
 
  • 3
  • 2
Reactions:
Authoritarianism, quite simply put, is not at all opposed intrinsicly to Egalitarianism.

It just isn't. You can try to twist the words all you want, but all you've done is create your own pet definitions and insist everyone use them instead of the *actual* definition.

Political Science freshmen get their ideas from their textbooks and teachers. Those internet charts use the terms the way they do because that's what those words mean.

What Wiz is really saying here is that he doesn't agree with political science and intends to use his position in the company as a soap box for those beliefs.
 
  • 7
  • 5
Reactions:
Authoritarianism, quite simply put, is not at all opposed intrinsicly to Egalitarianism.

It just isn't. You can try to twist the words all you want, but all you've done is create your own pet definitions and insist everyone use them instead of the *actual* definition.

Political Science freshmen get their ideas from their textbooks and teachers. Those internet charts use the terms the way they do because that's what those words mean.

What Wiz is really saying here is that he doesn't agree with political science and intends to use his position in the company as a soap box for those beliefs.
Seems to me like you've just sort of opted to blot out any argument that might indicate you're wrong and that there are multiple definitions.
 
  • 5
  • 3
Reactions:
Nope, those arguments are just incorrect, so other than saying so I have no need to address them.
Well, no- you need to refute them. Which you haven't, and you can't, because you're arguing "X is always true" when the other people are providing arguments for "X is sometimes true but there exist existing definitions in which X is false".

A word can have more than one meaning or connotation, especially in political theory.
 
  • 4
Reactions:
Well, no- you need to refute them. Which you haven't, and you can't, because you're arguing "X is always true" when the other people are providing arguments for "X is sometimes true but there exist existing definitions in which X is false".

A word can have more than one meaning or connotation, especially in political theory.

Well, no, *I* don't have to refute them, because they've already been refuted definitively. But I'll do it anyway, since your clearly still not getting it:

You are correct that words can have different meanings in different contexts, but the context here is no mystery. It is known, well known.

The ethics "wheel" is set up as opposing dualities, materialism vs spiritualism, xenophobia vs xenophilia, etc. I don't think anyone is challenging that. This provides the context and framework for our use of terms.

In *this* context the opposite of Authoritarianism is, properly speaking, "Anti-Authoritarianism," not egalitarianism, not even really Libertarianism.

In this context the opposite of Egalitarianism is Elitism.

To get "Authoritarianism is the opposite of Egalitarianism" you have to literally ignore the actual meaning of *both* of those words and substitute your own.

This isn't rocket science.

In fact, it's *political* science.
 
  • 6
  • 4
Reactions:
To get "Authoritarianism is the opposite of Egalitarianism" you have to literally ignore the actual meaning of *both* of those words and substitute your own.
It requires ignoring the meaning you have chosen to elevate to the One True Meaning, in point of fact- which, again, plenty of people have provided compelling arguments for being silly.

But it's clear you don't care- you've already made up your mind, and your argument is thus irrelevant because you're not willing to change it to fit the actual facts.
 
  • 5
  • 5
Reactions:
Status
Not open for further replies.