A better alternative to the Xenophobe-Xenophile axis: Realist-Idealist?

[Kataclyszm]

for me--at least--these two are what keeps it from making 'good guys' level. It's probably morally natural unless enforced rather draconically. But its certainty not good.

On the other hand, pacificist xenophobia where you are like 'you guys stay out there, we will stay in here.' but you don't go full isolationist is also natural. And might even make low key good if you are active in making the galaxy a better place.

Yes, because that isn't evil or anything. And has worked so well in the modern world. As an American I'm offended you are labeling this as 'not evil.' Just saying.

Xenophobia isn't evil in the context of the stellaris universe, given the number of purifiers and crazy televangelist empires running around. The only reason I'd say xenophobia is 'clearly evil' is that it unlocks slavery--much like authoritarian ethics--but that in and of itself isn't required. I think this would be much better recognized if slavery wasn't default for non-fanatic xenophobia. and if more AI xenophobe empires weren't slavers.

Oh, wow, look who's calling slavery evil, now! Look, maybe you egalitarian rabble don't get it, but access to the labor of your lessers is required to have an actual functioning society.

 

[Varren]

Xenophobia isn't evil in the context of the stellaris universe, given the number of purifiers and crazy televangelist empires running around.

That's rather like saying "Paranoia is perfectly reasonable in the modern world, given the number of murderers running around." The issue isn't that they believe some aliens mean them harm; it's that they believe every alien is inherently less deserving of a place in society.

At worst, you could argue that Xenophiles are naive. Even then, they're not required to treat Fanatic Purifiers nicely; they just separate the pops from the empire in such cases. That is, you're perfectly able to wipe out a Purifier empire without mercy, but you're compelled to treat any pops you capture as equals to be rehabilitated... and, in general, it is quite possible to integrate xenocidal pops into a peaceful society.

 

[Cleaving3]

Orbis Customer Synergies maintains itself as an equal opportunity employer. Some may call us Xenophile, we call ourselves Pragmatic. Join the team now!
In accordance with galactic law, we must specify that Orbis Customer Synergies is currently under internal investigation due to reports of wage slavery. We passionately deny the allegations, as that implies our Indentured Assets are paid wages, which we would have to pay taxes on.

 

[Newbee53]

That's rather like saying "Paranoia is perfectly reasonable in the modern world, given the number of murderers running around." The issue isn't that they believe some aliens mean them harm; it's that they believe every alien is inherently less deserving of a place in society.

At worst, you could argue that Xenophiles are naive. Even then, they're not required to treat Fanatic Purifiers nicely; they just separate the pops from the empire in such cases. That is, you're perfectly able to wipe out a Purifier empire without mercy, but you're compelled to treat any pops you capture as equals to be rehabilitated... and, in general, it is quite possible to integrate xenocidal pops into a peaceful society.

Depends on how paranoid you are. A little paranoia isn't going to be a big deal. it certainty isn't going to hurt other people, which is where things go from 'just natural' to actually evil. Which yet again is where things get into problems with just blank applying evil to xenophobia in a game like stellaris

At worst, you could argue that Xenophiles are naive. Even then, they're not required to treat Fanatic Purifiers nicely; they just separate the pops from the empire in such cases. That is, you're perfectly able to wipe out a Purifier empire without mercy, but you're compelled to treat any pops you capture as equals to be rehabilitated... and, in general, it is quite possible to integrate xenocidal pops into a peaceful society.

Both are naive, as both apply beliefs about individuals to entire categories. Xenophiles on the 'good side' and xenophobes on the 'bad side' if you need such simplifications. however, both can be run without causing harm to 'others' which means both can be run without being evil.

In practice and in the real world, we'd be having a different conversation. But in this fictional universe its enterally different.

Especially as you can give them utopia abundance as residence. Hadly harming people. And the context of this entire conversation was a desire to make the axis even more confusing because xenophobia sounds 'evil' in the real world. This is a science fiction game where people want to make the Star Wars Galactic Empire.

 

[Tannhäuser Cake]

a desire to make the axis even more confusing

Ascribing malicious intent to a suggestion you disagree with is not good manners.

 

[T. Hermil]

Idealism, at its philosophical core, be like "we can't know reality as it is itself", which, over the decades, led to idealists increasingly prioritizing their internal world of ideas over reality itself, and at this point in history, we may be arriving at their "meltdown", as reality is a giga-troll and tends to not give a damn about your ideas.
Even Kant, the "founder" of idealism clearly warns that you can't solve real problems with "pure reason", pure reasoning is only for solving pure reason problems (like in mathematics) but idealists kinda forgote about that, which led to a point where they can't even change reality because they don't know what reality is, or fail to understand it.

The opposite to idealist in this sense would be PRAGMATIST, while the idealist sees his ideas not fitting into reality they say "well let's change reality according to my ideas" (this kinda always fails lol), while the pragmatist sees reality and thinks "let's see where I can fit myself in to profit from this preexistent reality"

 

[Lorenerd11]

To effectively rename "Xenophobe" to "Realist" seems quite a bit biased.

1. Xenophobe is the only ethic that essentially says "we are evil"

It is hostility towards the "other". And it is an accurate representation of societies like W40k's Imperium, where hatred for alien species is overt and explicit, with plenty precedent in our own history.

There are plenty people who consider hatred for the "other" to be a virtue, and despise those who would commit the "sin of empathy".

It is realistic to depict it as what it is.

2. The name "Xenophobe" defines its ethic by what it fights against, rather than what it fights for.

So change it to Oikophile vs Xenophile.

Xenophiles like alien cultures. Oikophiles like their own culture.

This genuinely just sounds like lofty rhetoric to make contempt for alien species and cultures sound nicer.

They do fight for something, specifically for their species' dominance in the galaxy. Again, these supremacist sentiments have plenty precedent in our own history.

And every empire likes its own culture by default, "liking your own culture" as an ethic means absolutely nothing. Xenophiles like how open and accepting their culture is, Xenophobes like how insular theirs is.

4. The Stellaris ethics are designed/supposed to be idealised versions of themselves, but there is no such thing as idealised xenophobia.

Xenophobia is plenty idealized by xenophobes. Again, W40k's Imperium is a good example. That doesn't make said "idealized" version actually good, just like how Spiritualists often come across as religious fanatics. But it is an idealization of what the ethic represents regardless.

 

[Newbee53]

Ascribing malicious intent to a suggestion you disagree with is not good manners.

fair point, it was in poor taste.

 

[Lorenerd11]

One issue I do have with the current xenophobe ethic is how hostile most flavor text for xenophobe pacifists is.

While it is realistic that "wanting to be left alone" without outright contempt is rarely a thing in our society, Stellaris is still designed to allow us to simulate a society like that, particularly emphasized through civics like Inward Perfection.

So as xenophobe pacifists, you should not have so much outright hostile or contemptful flavor text or dialogue options, instead emphasizing caution, distrust, and general isolationism.

 

[Tannhäuser Cake]

One issue I do have with the current xenophobe ethic is how hostile most flavor text for xenophobe pacifists is.

While it is realistic that "wanting to be left alone" without outright contempt is rarely a thing in our society, Stellaris is still designed to allow us to simulate a society like that, particularly emphasized through civics like Inward Perfection.

So as xenophobe pacifists, you should not have so much outright hostile or contemptful flavor text or dialogue options, instead emphasizing caution, distrust, and general isolationism.

This is one of the reasons why I am arguing that (de-pacifisticated) Isolationist should be the default type of Xenophobe, without the single-species citizenship, slavery and genocide (though still displacement and dislike of refugees). Supremacist would then be the more extreme one, with expansionism, slavery and/or violent purging, that requires conditions (such as civics) to add on.

Regardless of whether the ethic is called Xenophobe, Realist, Nationalist, or something else.

 

[Lorenerd11]

This is one of the reasons why I am arguing that (de-pacifisticated) Isolationist should be the default type of Xenophobe, without the single-species citizenship, slavery and genocide (though still displacement and dislike of refugees). Supremacist would then be the more extreme one, with expansionism, slavery and/or violent purging, that requires conditions (such as civics) to add on.

You'd need a far more complex ethic/civic system for that, the current ethic/civic system would not do well in supporting this. Each civic comes at an opportunity cost, and requiring a specific civic to unlock those mechanics would not work well.

Let's assume there is some kind of option to choose between Supremacist and Isolationist Xenophobe that does not impinge on the current ethic/civic systems. That still leaves the question of what gameplay mechanics would define the Isolationist playstyle.

When you take away the slavery, purging, and single-species citizenship, what would define the Isolationist playstyle?

 

[Cry_Havok]

I could imagine a civic that's sort of like Selective Kinship that lets Xenophobes/non-philes allow refugees but keeps it so only the main species can have full citizenship and everyone else is locked to residence. "If they end up here through no fault of their own they can stay, but their inlluence must be limited. Maybe it also removes the diplomatic weight penalty and border friction from Islolationist. therefor creating another civic for Xenophobe .5.

Harmoniious Isolation
Requires: Some Degree Pacifist, not any degree Xenophile
Effect: Set policies to refugees welcome and all non-primary species pops are set to residence. Isolationist diplomatic stance no longer gives penalties.
Councilor: Minister of Internal Harmony: +1% Governing Ethics attraction and -1% sprawl from primary species pops.

 

[Lorenerd11]

I've come up with an idea to distinguish between the different "types" of Xenophobe, Spiritualist, etc. through a Principles system, a sort of in-between system between ethics and civics.

 

[Archael90]

Stellaris lacks mechanics related to unrests. There are some, but there definitely should be a mechanic that decrease planet stability depending on species variety.
Then both xenophobia (monospecies society) would have their strengths that are not considered bad (keeping planets stable, caring of their citizens) and xenophilia would have their "bad" side (putting others on top of founder species).
Either way.
Xenophobes have access to purges and slavery (I disagree that slavery should be a thing for xenophobes), but you don't have to use those, purges not to the extreme - just keep Your species on planets and do not interact with alien species at all, and you are xenophobe while not harming.
Xenophobia is not "evil" player acting (allnd AI weighting) is evil - extreme purges, slavery. Other thing is that game mechanics do not encourage such playstyle

 

[majdavlk]

xenophobe is just as moraly gray as egali, auth, or spiritualist

 

[majdavlk]

Maybe let's remove xenophobe/phile and introduce ecologism/industrialism?

ecologism doesn't make much sense either, its basicaly anti sapience ethic

 

[Nikolai II]

I can imagine moral frameworks, not my own, under which Stellaris Authoritarian and/or Stellaris Militarist state ethoses are justifiable as Good and Righteous behaviour.

For example, Phile/Auth/Mil could be justified under the following axioms:

• Everyone has a place. (Phile)
• Everyone should know their place. (Auth)
• A strong arm is necessary to defend the righteous from threats both moral and physical. (Mil)

..the exact same list works identically even if you swap out "Phile" for "Phobe" (it might even work better that way with your wording, the Phile version would maybe be "there is room enough for everyone" - "everyone should get their fair share assigned to them" - "or divested from them if they have too much")

 

[Nakkivene]

I disagree for many reasons on many of your points. Not gonna red x because it never feels respectful (thumbsup/down was the most cretinous thing ever invented on discussion forums) and it's a good post.

Firstly, in my view, authoritarian is just as blatantly evil as xenophobe. Militarist too, considering killing people to be acceptable in order to gain something.

Secondly, those people who proudly claim to hate the xenos? They exist. In great numbers. They hold speeches in our highest offices. Trying to soften the idea of xenophobia in Stellaris to something nicer sounding would be propaganda. Taking it away also would disallow you to larp as the Imperium of Man or somesuch.

Thirdly, I don't see idealist-realist as true ethical axis. There are idealists and then there are self-serving sociopaths.

 

[grommile]

There are idealists and then there are self-serving sociopaths.

From the outside, of course, some idealists can look like self-serving psychopaths.

 

[Ryika]

This is one of the reasons why I am arguing that (de-pacifisticated) Isolationist should be the default type of Xenophobe, without the single-species citizenship, slavery and genocide (though still displacement and dislike of refugees). Supremacist would then be the more extreme one, with expansionism, slavery and/or violent purging, that requires conditions (such as civics) to add on.

Regardless of whether the ethic is called Xenophobe, Realist, Nationalist, or something else.

Perhaps it would make sense to have a system similar to AI personalities as an in-between of Ethics and Empire. Instead of having your Ethics decide directly what actions and defaults are available in your empire, have them give you access to different "empire personalities" that inherit most of those effects.

Personalities could be unlocked by having certain Ethics, or Ethics Combinations, or even Civics. That way, different Empires with the same Ethics could nonetheless have a completely different set of "beliefs" based on the "empire personality" that you choose.

There are some potential issues with it - forcing every empire into an overarching archetype might feel in itself restricting for example - but I believe there's some interesting design space there.