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

[Tannhäuser Cake]

Realist vs Xenophobe

From my perspective, there are intrinsic issues with the Xenophobe-Xenophile axis that hold it, and the Stellaris ethics system, back from being as good as it could be.

1. Xenophobe is the only ethic that essentially says "we are evil". All other ethic axes are ambiguous on which side is morally/rationally superior, as anyone could proudly and justifiably call themselves Egalitarian, Militarist, Pacifist, Materialist, Spiritualist or even Authoritarian when describing themselves. By contrast, it is just strange to consider the idea of someone proclaiming "I am a proud xenophobe who proudly supports fear/hate/shunning of xenos". It is overly overtly moustache-twirling caricature evil. There is no credible, realistic way to spin the ethic's name into an argument that ends with "and therefore we are good guys pursuing a good cause", since the name "Xenophobe" itself already proclaims that "we are the baddies".

2. The name "Xenophobe" defines its ethic by what it fights against, rather than what it fights for. This makes it harder to rationally justify any bonuses given by the ethic, since bonuses typically are pro-something rather than anti-something. Fearing and hating xenos does not mean by itself that an empire would be good at claiming more territory, or growing/assembling population, or being more internally united; the outcome could, logically, just as easily swing in the opposite direction through internal fragmentation over petty differences that other empires could have handled. The implications of the name also break down if we imagine a galaxy with only same-species empires, or just one empire remaining; xenophobia cannot credibly exist if there is no xeno to be phobic about. While the name Oikophilia has previously been suggested as an alternative, it is an obscure and very recent term that has multiple different definitions (including environmental aspects).

3. Xenophobia should have a place in Stellaris, but it could be handled on a more situational basis, and with a better gradient. Currently, the very worst sides of the ethic are already unlocked in the moderate version of the ethic: whole-species slavery, livestock xenophagia, and genocidal purging. The fanatic version of the ethic, and even the Fanatic Purifiers civic, are not particularly extreme in comparison to that. While this lack of a gradient could be addressed somewhat via tweaks, the step from non-Xenophobe to moderate Xenophobe would still remain very steep as an empire can go straight from free, unenslavable xeno citizens (which arguably is an oxymoron since a citizen, per definition, is not a xeno) to enslaved xeno citizens without hope of ever becoming citizens. The name "Xenophobe" also makes it difficult to justify the design changes needed in this regard, as the necessary changes would make it a poorly fitting term.

4. The Stellaris ethics are designed/supposed to be idealised versions of themselves, but there is no such thing as idealised xenophobia. At least, this is if I remember correctly from when I read the first, pre-launch Stellaris developer diaries (any resident archaeologist can feel free to dig into this). Essentially, while it is possible to list bad historical experiences for each ethic dimension (except perhaps Gestalt Consciousness), the ethics should all be given the benefit of the doubt and be considered well-meaning with good sides (until proven otherwise by the player). But what does that even look like with Xenophobe? If there is such a thing as an idealised version of the xenophobia dimension, it would be so different that the name loses its accuracy, because the current name is centered on the negative extremes.

There is, however, a school of thought in political science that matches the foreign policy positions of Xenophobe very well: Realism. It can even be considered a missed opportunity - it is not just strange, but even weird, that Realism lacks a clear representation in a game about geopolitics and international (interstellar) power struggles.

• "Realism [...] views world politics as an enduring competition among self-interested states vying for power and positioning within an anarchic global system devoid of a centralized authority. It centers on states as rational primary actors navigating a system shaped by power politics, national interest, and a pursuit of security and self-preservation."
• "Unlike idealism or liberalism, realism underscores the competitive and conflictual nature of global politics. In contrast to liberalism, which champions cooperation, realism asserts that the dynamics of the international arena revolve around states actively advancing national interests and prioritizing security. While idealism leans towards cooperation and ethical considerations, realism argues that states operate in a realm devoid of inherent justice, where ethical norms may not apply."
• Realism believes that:
  • Sovereign states are the central actors in international politics; not international organizations.
  • The international political system is anarchic.
  • States act in rational self-interest.
  • States desire power to ensure self-preservation.
  • States must be pragmatic, rather than ideological, in their actions.

The ethic Xenophobe and its Supremacist and Isolationist factions currently oppose federation membership, favouring sovereignty over cooperation. This aligns well with Realist, which means that Realism could effectively substitute Xenophobe in foreign policy aspects. The -20% Starbase Influence cost bonus would also make perfect sense and be a natural expression of Realism's focus on pursuing rational self-interest and securing power for the sake of self-preservation in an anarchic political system.

While Realism does not say much about domestic policies and internal relations, we could however derive domestic/internal from what the state represents: the collective will of the citizens, or at least those belonging the governing ethics.

• Focusing on the sovereignty of the state goes hand in hand with defending the collective sovereignty of the citizens, and one obvious representation of this would be a +50%/100% (?) Political Power bonus for pops with Full Citizenship rights.
• This would also align with the policy direction of Xenophobe empires in regards to their non-citizens, but with some important distinctions: slavery and violent purging would not be inherent parts of Realist, as these extremes would rather be handled via civics.
• Furthermore, aliens would not be automatically precluded from possibly gaining Full Citizenship - though the road from "alien and external" to "familiar and integrated" would likely be more difficult than in other empires, and civics could affect the possibility of this happening.
• Realist empires could similarly have no issue with controlled immigration (i.e. Migration Treaty), which would likely come from similar-minded empires, while still opposing uncontrolled immigration (i.e. refugees) that potentially threaten the stability of the state via internal cultural divisions and conflict (moderate Realists could block non-Citizen refugees, and fanatic Realists could block Citizen refugees too). The Realist relationship to refugees and migration could be compared to how Spiritualist empires hate artificial intelligence, but can tolerate non-AI robots.
• Fear Campaign seems to be compatible with this interpretation of Realist, as it could be considered a defence of national sovereignty against alien or destabilizing influences. Similarly, the current Xenophobe ethic descriptions are not too far off from the Realist perspective on international relations (at least, when interpreting their meaning in the context of Realism rather than Xenophobia).
• (In regards to the Supremacist/Isolationist factions, it can be argued that Isolationist should be the default position with broader appeal, while Supremacist is for Militarists, Authoritarians and/or specific civics. Though Militant Isolationist should also be a thing, i.e. the Isolationist faction should leave the pacifism to the Pacifist ethic's faction, and empires with Realist+Spiritualist+Authoritarian ethics may usually fit better with Isolationist than Supremacist, so perhaps it would be best to gate the Supremacist faction behind specific civics like Fanatic Purifiers and Nationalistic Zeal, or the Supremacist diplomatic stance that is unlocked by the Supremacy tradition tree.)
• Furthermore, Realist would also fit much better thematically/conceptually with the paragons an empire may obtain; it is difficult to explain their presence in an overtly xenophobic empire that denies citizenship to other species, perhaps even enslaving or purging them - while it is apparently fine to give these individuals a massive influence over the empire, and even a shot at getting elected as the next ruler.

In conclusion...

In regards to the issues with Xenophobe that were outlined above, Realist seems to offer a much better alternative. The name Realist is not one-sidedly evil, it is crystal clear what Realist would actually stand for (not just against) and why it would get and deserve its bonuses & principles, and Realist would allow more and better gradients and nuances than Xenophobe - which makes for a richer and more varied gameplay experience. Realist would also fit better with Stellaris' overall design/presentation principles for ethics, as Realist's bonuses and principles would be rooted in arguments that are understandable and relatable (even if one disagrees with them), and Realist empires/players would have much greater room to tell themselves that they are fundamentally good guys - as opposed to Xenophobe empires. Finally, the Realist ethic would be a perfect fit for this game about international (interstellar) power struggles and geopolitics, and its inclusion as an ethic axis would elevate Stellaris.



Idealist vs Xenophile

If Xenophobe was replaced with Realist, it would make sense to also consider replacing Xenophile with something that works better as an opposite. It can also be argued that Xenophile has a similar issue as Xenophobe, as there are conceivable game states where the implied meaning of the ethic would break down - such as in a galaxy consisting only of same-species empires, or in a galaxy-spanning empire where there no longer exist any true aliens, just a diverse mix of citizens (i.e. once aliens are no longer alien, but have become familiar, they are no longer "xeno" and should logically be ignored by both the -phile and -phobe perspectives.) The two main schools of thought that oppose Realism are Liberalism and Idealism, which are similar and related.

It would be problematic to use "Liberalism" as the opposite, for several reasons:

• The word is too associated with domestic policies, and would be confusing to many players. There would also be a risk of players drawing the mistaken conclusion that Stellaris would be saying that "liberalism is unrealistic" in the common meanings of those words.
• Liberalism (international relations) is pro-democracy, i.e. Stellaris Egalitarian.
• Liberalism (international relations) is pro-trade to promote peace, i.e. Stellaris Pacifist twice over (both the peace part, and the trade part due to Pacifist's Prosperity faction).

Idealism, meanwhile offers an interesting alternative.

• "... realism in the context of foreign affairs is traditionally seen as the opposite of idealism ..."
  • Idealism was the progenitor of both Liberalism and Neoconservatism in international relations.
• "Idealism in the foreign policy context holds that a nation-state should make its internal political philosophy the goal of its conduct and rhetoric in international affairs."
  • Meaning that international relations should follow ethical principles and pursue moral goals.
• "More generally, academic Michael W. Doyle has described idealism as based on the belief that other nations' stated positive intentions can be relied on, whereas realism holds that said intentions are in the long run subject to the security dilemma described by thinker John H. Herz."

Some takeaways of the above:

• The word "Idealist" is a clear and intuitive opposite of "Realist", highlighting that the former is more optimistic or high-minded while the latter is more cynical and jaded, without really implying which one is better or morally superior.
• The definition and spirit of Idealism is very close to the role currently held by Xenophile in Stellaris.
  • Idealists believe that they can rely on the positive intentions of others.
  • If the general spirit of cooperation is not fully expressed by Idealism, it can still be borrowed/claimed from the descendant Liberalism.
• Idealist is, however, a broader concept than Xenophile, which allows a much more nuanced and varied implementation. Idealist would be much easier to use as basis for civics.
  • As evidence of this, consider that out of all the civics in Stellaris, Xenophile unlocks ONE: Free Haven.
  • A low-hanging fruit / addition to Idealist, that aligns with the name Idealist, would be Idealistic Foundation.
  • Another civic, that would be easier to connect conceptually to Idealist than Xenophile, is Diplomatic Corps.
  • Crusader Spirit would also be a candidate (hello Neoconservatism, descendant of Idealism).
• Thoughts on some AI personalities:
  • The AI personality Honorbound Warriors currently has the Xenophile ethic as one of the alternate trigger conditions. It is not immediately clear why xenophilia should make warriors more concerned with honour, but it would be crystal clear with the Idealist ethic, both in itself but also because it would exist in opposition to Realist. Warriors who pursue an idealised form of warfare would need a ruleset / code of conduct that defines and upholds the ideal and guides them towards it - i.e. a code of honour.
  • The AI personality Migratory Flock aligns as well with Idealist as with Xenophile.
  • The AI personality Democratic Crusaders could get Idealist as a new condition alternative to Egalitarian.
• The Xenophile ethic descriptions are compatible with the spirit of Idealism.
• The Envoy bonus would fit Idealist just as well as it does Xenophile, conceptually (though perhaps it should instead be replaced with an Influence cost reduction for diplomatic actions/treaties, since that would also affect the Galactic Community, since that arena is THE diplomatic arena for external promotion of the empire's values; this would also better mirror Realist's Influence cost reduction for expansion).
• The other, domestic bonus of Idealist could be derived from projecting Idealist's international attitudes on internal relations, particularly the relation to any non-Citizens or wrong-ethic pops. For instance, Idealist could add +20% / +40% minimum Faction Approval while moderate Idealist blocks suppression of factions and fanatic Idealist blocks support of governing factions (i.e. fanatic Idealist would not get any faction unhappiness).
  • This bonus would align well with moderate Idealist blocking No Refugees and fanatic Idealist requiring Refugees Welcome, and could also be particularly useful when conquering worlds from other empires.
• Idealist could swap ethic edicts with Egalitarian; Encourage Political Thought and Land of Opportunity could both fit much better together with the other ethic, i.e. Idealist gets Encourage Political Thought, while Egalitarian gets Land of Opportunity.
  • Egalitarian needs LoO to compensate for its inability to forcibly resettle pops, and it would also mirror the great immigration to the contemporarily relatively Egalitarian USA, back when it was known as the land of opportunity.
  • Meanwhile, the EPT makes much more sense than LoO for Idealist.
• Idealist's faction could prefer the Liberation Wars War Philosophy (but also settle for Defensive Wars, in case of pacifism).

Having survived the walls of text above, what are your thoughts on the topic?
Agree, disagree, alternate suggestions, better ideas?

 

[Ryika]

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

So you're a spacefaring empire. Happy Spiritualist Egalitarians. Finally, contact with an Alien society! An exciting day. But oh no, oh crap, they're eating our envoys!
2 years later, they've eaten everybody on your frontier colonies and it seems like their fleets are on their way to your core sector.

But, you just made contact with another Alien society. Perhaps they will aid in your fight against a shared threat. But oh no, oh crap, they're dissecting our envoys!
2 years later, they've purged half of your core sector, and the capital is just sitting there, ready for the final stand.

Your society, with the last of their kind now deeply fearful of the Alien, shifts their governing principle towards Xenophobia.
Thankfully you evil aliens will be removed from the galaxy soon. It will certainly be a better place without your bigotry.

---

I think to say that Xenophobia is inherently evil seems like a very modern, privileged way of thinking, that only really works in a world like ours where there are practically no situation that Xenophobia is a reasonable response to. But in the context of a galaxy where there's actual threats to worry about, and every new neighbor is a 50:50 on whether they will be your friends or try to enslave-or-worse you, being a Xenophobe does make a lot more sense.

Xenophobia is a response to a perceived threat after all, and only unreasonable if those perceived threats are not actually out to harm you. If they are out to harm you, Xenophobia is what helps you survive. Similarly, an alien species may have had a very different past from that of humans, and perhaps being fearful of outside threats is a much more natural reaction to what they have lived through.

I wish there was more nuance between "We hate the alien and will enslave or eradicate them." and "We want to stay diplomatically isolated but don't hate other societies." type of Xenophobes, but overall I don't see too much of a problem with the Ethic as it is now.

 

[Rezca]

Xenophobe-Pacifists being the outlier then, in that they're more just wanting to stay isolated from galactic affairs but can be fairly cordial otherwise. Though the game's flavor-text of Xenophobe doesn't lend well to suggesting as such.

 

[Newbee53]

It can even be considered a missed opportunity - it is not just strange, but even weird, that Realism lacks a clear representation in a game about geopolitics and international (interstellar) power struggles.

This is your big problem. This isn't the main point of Stellaris. It's a fantasy game meant to play around with sci-fi tropes and allow you to build empires and species similar to those in stories we all know and love. At least as is much as is practical and fun. It's not intended to be a politics simulator. Trying to fit these things into something it's really not meant to be.

99% of players will see 'realist vs idealist' and get confused about materialists and then point out that in the stellaris world spiritual powers like psychics are actually real. while realist vs xenophile would be as an endorsement of hatred and enslaving aliens. While other combinations would run into other problems along the same line.

I think a case could be made for an isolationist-diplomatic axis instead. Assuming you moved the restrictions on whole species enslavement elsewhere. But anything that gets close to 'xenophobia/xenophilia is a morality bar' is utterly stupid. There is a reason that particular mechanic is dying in games.

Realist vs Xenophobe

The biggest problem with this is that Xenophobia is idealist. Not in the sense of geopolitics--because I don't really know that definition--but in the sense of contemporary speech. Real world Xenophobia idealizes their own culture and demonizes everyone else's. This isn't what a realist is--again outside of the very specialized definitions--a realist disregards that which they can't tangibly verify and usually take a dimmer--on optimism vs pessimism concerns--view of the possible outcomes. In fact, realists can be optimists in this sense, if they don't expect things to go the right way.

..I think to say that Xenophobia is inherently evil seems like a very modern, privileged way of thinking, but in the context of a galaxy where there's actual threats to worry about, and every new neighbor is a 50:50 on whether they will be your friends or try to enslave-or-worse you, being a Xenophobe does not make a lot of sense.

This right here, I feel like you are confusing 'science fiction world with actual fucking aliens' verse 'a world where we are all humans and Xeno focuses on petty differences.'

(i.e. once aliens are no longer alien, but have become familiar, they are no longer "xeno" and should logically be ignored by both the -phile and -phobe perspectives.)

At what point would an actual alien--not a star track alien--stop being 'xeno' because I seriously doubt it would ever happen in reality. Small differences that cannot be removed because of truly alien biology that constantly remind us that they are not human.

But if we are talking about real world geopolitics, then what you describe as Realism is xenophobia here in America anyways. The only people who act and put forward xenophobic policies would argue that they are viewing the world through this 'realism' filter you've put forward. After all, that is literally the position of those who protect Trump in the general policies.

So, you aren't suggesting a change in any way that makes sense. Xenophobia fits all the mechanical parts, and the only issue is that it has a related negative view. But it's a known word that most people will immediately relate with the mechanics provided. I think the non-fanatical version shouldn't have slavery--unless you are also authoritarian--but also shouldn't allow citizen xenos. But it's hardly the worst bit of fitting it in.

 

[Dayknight]

Rather than realism and idealism which has too vague meaning, I think it should work around how isolated they are. I mean, its not like alien presence is common for all pre-ftl civilization. In that sense xenophobe is isolationist, and xenophilie is.. something. Expansionist? idk.

 

[Cry_Havok]

I would like to point out that while it would be reasonable to look at Phobe/Phile as a morality bar, only Spiritaulist is REQUIRED to commit atrocities. Phobe can just give everyone residence and high living standards (which can be useful for isolationists with presapients and pre-FTLs. Spiritualist MUST enslave or purge sapient robots.

 

[Lazy Name]

1. Xenophobe is the only ethic that essentially says "we are evil". All other ethic axes are ambiguous on which side is morally/rationally superior, as anyone could proudly and justifiably call themselves Egalitarian, Militarist, Pacifist, Materialist, Spiritualist or even Authoritarian when describing themselves. By contrast, it is just strange to consider the idea of someone proclaiming "I am a proud xenophobe who proudly supports fear/hate/shunning of xenos". It is overly overtly moustache-twirling caricature evil. There is no credible, realistic way to spin the ethic's name into an argument that ends with "and therefore we are good guys pursuing a good cause", since the name "Xenophobe" itself already proclaims that "we are the baddies".

I'm not sure this is a problem. Firstly, because it often is desireable to players to create an empire that evidently is "the baddies", and having an ethic to represent that is thus valuable. Secondly, because I would say it absolutely is realistic for some people out there to proclaim "I am a proud xenophobe who proudly supports fear/hate/shunning of xenos", and in fact I would imagine there are some people living in our society today who would gladly say very similar things in each others company. Some of them probably even do believe they are good guys supporting a good cause, too.

This makes it harder to rationally justify any bonuses given by the ethic, since bonuses typically are pro-something rather than anti-something. Fearing and hating xenos does not mean by itself that an empire would be good at claiming more territory, or growing/assembling population, or being more internally united; the outcome could, logically, just as easily swing in the opposite direction through internal fragmentation over petty differences that other empires could have handled.

I think the same can be said for the other ethics, though. Can religious societies be said to always be more unified, for example? Can't you imagine cases where religions split into sects that vehemently disagree with each other, or alienate members of their own communities? The bonuses given by the ethics are meant to be generalized and ideal, because there will of course be examples of ineffective societies for any ethic.

4. The Stellaris ethics are designed/supposed to be idealised versions of themselves, but there is no such thing as idealised xenophobia. At least, this is if I remember correctly from when I read the first, pre-launch Stellaris developer diaries (any resident archaeologist can feel free to dig into this). Essentially, while it is possible to list bad historical experiences for each ethic dimension (except perhaps Gestalt Consciousness), the ethics should all be given the benefit of the doubt and be considered well-meaning with good sides (until proven otherwise by the player). But what does that even look like with Xenophobe? If there is such a thing as an idealised version of the xenophobia dimension, it would be so different that the name loses its accuracy, because the current name is centered on the negative extremes.

Admitedly, this is something that the game is lacking, but it is possible to imagine idealized xenophobia as a society that is wary and untrusting of the unknown but still fair and reasonable. Of course, in Stellaris there is no real unknown to be wary and untrusting of because you are instantly given the AI personality of every empire you make contact with, but that isn't a fault with the Xenophobe ethos itself. Stellaris ethics are broad strokes, which necessarily means a lot of different flavours of those philosophies will be lost and have to be added back as Civics.



As for the proposed Realism vs Idealism axis, I don't hate the idea, but I do feel like it begins to step on the toes of Authoritarianism and Egalitarianism as they currently exist in the game. The idea is probably for Realism/Idealism to be the international ethos and Auth/Egal to be the internal one, but at present Authoritarianism is already so heavily associated with themes of "competition over cooperation, pragmatism over ideals, dog eat dog" and vice versa for Egalitarians such that adding in Realism and Idealism would just seem redundant, especially considering the ethics are broad strokes thing. Overall, I feel this suggestion would replace a flavourful ethic axis with one too similar to what we already have, ultimately hurting the variety of empire flavours you can create rather than improving it.

 

[drawar]

Being xenophobic does not mean being evil. Just like being nationalistic does not mean rejecting others.
As in everything, there are extremists.
Admittedly, the description of xenophobic ethics is a bit of a caricature.

You can "perfectly" play a multicultural and "open" xenophobic empire.
You can't give full citizenship, but they can still have political power.
You can give them good living conditions.
It can't have a leader, except through special events...

It is certain that the xenophobic faction will not be very happy and that it will also increase the appeal of the xenophilic faction.
Unfortunately, faction approval bonuses and penalties are fixed.
For example, having a single migration treaty will have the same impact as 10.

But it also shows the limitations of the faction system which is too rigid and the absence of cultural belonging.
Two species could very well get along, but be totally xenophobic hostile to others.


The other concern is that ethics can block options. Which is very limiting and sometimes frustrating.
I would much prefer that ethics and other factors define some kind of constitution and that when you violate the constitution, there is a unity cost.

 

[Beauty Nova]

Maybe it's just a "me" thing but I can't see any viable path from "I'm a proud authoritarian/militarist!" to "Therefore I'm a good guy!" either. Spiritualists are on thin ice too.

I suppose the "good" side of xenophobia might be isolationism or paternalism. Bit of an overlap with authoritarian with the latter but that's nothing new.

 

[grommile]

Maybe it's just a "me" thing but I can't see any viable path from "I'm a proud authoritarian/militarist!" to "Therefore I'm a good guy!" either. Spiritualists are on thin ice too.

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)

 

[Askorti]

Your whole argument stems from lack of understanding. Or perhaps very surface level understanding.

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

The name implies so, but the practice shows that it's not true. I don't know why whenever a term ends with "phobia" people get so literal with it's meaning. It's not about literal fear.

When you look beyond the name you understand that it's fighting for the well-being of your own species over others. It's not as you said "what you fight against", it is very much "what you fight for", and it is, "your own people".
It's the very simple binary of "us vs them". It's not inherently evil in any way to care about the people you know over the people you do not know.

 

[Dr. B]

Your whole argument stems from lack of understanding. Or perhaps very surface level understanding.

The name implies so, but the practice shows that it's not true. I don't know why whenever a term ends with "phobia" people get so literal with it's meaning. It's not about literal fear.

When you look beyond the name you understand that it's fighting for the well-being of your own species over others. It's not as you said "what you fight against", it is very much "what you fight for", and it is, "your own people".
It's the very simple binary of "us vs them". It's not inherently evil in any way to care about the people you know over the people you do not know.

Yes, exactly this. It is not evil, just ourselves versus them.

Also, that post was very long.

 

[Casko]

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

Found the Lolbetarian here /// this is a joke.

in seriousness though this is very.. how do you say? Modern way of thinking about Xenophobia. and like all things, these come in variety of shapes and sizes. be it just a regular slavers, to "they are different thus inferior" to "we need to clean this whole planet to make room for our new nature park." or even just "leave us alone and we leave you alone"

one could very easily flip it on the philes just as easily with things such as forced philia in a government as seen with many of the Soviet-style, or Liberal DEI et cetra doctrines. Such as "You will be liberated worker or you will be sent to "Blorg's fun place of many funs". (we can kinda do this in a Xenophilic Authoritarian state too where blorg plushies are mandatory). only instead of worker liberation you will kiss the blorg.

idealised xenophobia

Hate to say this to you.... but in real world there very much is idealised xenophobia. and it can vary WILDLY between ethic groups and cultures. or just people groups.
Unfortunately Forum rules probably forbid me from giving too many examples as... lets just say People have had "FUN" in the name of Utopia. But Disney Pocahontas Savages song is a good starting point.

Not to mention there are certain parts of Racism and Xenophobia that is realist, and at the same time idealist. and same in reverse, such as hiring specific tribe members to be runners in sports.


.....

Thank you for joining me on my ted talk on why xeno phobia/phile work real well at describing what they entail as ethics and how philosophy and such are complicated and how sapients, may or may not be butt heads no matter what they do.

 

[Archael90]

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

 

[Archael90]

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)

About militarism - in stellaris militarism is evil. With rl logic it should not be only evil. Stellaris does not allow for coplmpetetive sparings, only wars. Rivals are enemies, never goals we want to achieve in terms of power.

 

[Archael90]

Being xenophobic does not mean being evil. Just like being nationalistic does not mean rejecting others.
As in everything, there are extremists.
Admittedly, the description of xenophobic ethics is a bit of a caricature.

You can "perfectly" play a multicultural and "open" xenophobic empire.
You can't give full citizenship, but they can still have political power.
You can give them good living conditions.
It can't have a leader, except through special events...

It is certain that the xenophobic faction will not be very happy and that it will also increase the appeal of the xenophilic faction.
Unfortunately, faction approval bonuses and penalties are fixed.
For example, having a single migration treaty will have the same impact as 10.

But it also shows the limitations of the faction system which is too rigid and the absence of cultural belonging.
Two species could very well get along, but be totally xenophobic hostile to others.


The other concern is that ethics can block options. Which is very limiting and sometimes frustrating.
I would much prefer that ethics and other factors define some kind of constitution and that when you violate the constitution, there is a unity cost.

I could say, that Poland is xenophobic country in Stellaris logic (but not fully).
We don't like other just because they are others. We keep Poland fore Poles.
But once foreigners proves to be "worthy" - follow our country rules, don't make bad things etc. They are very welcome and could be considered Poles as well if they keep following the rules.

 

[BrokenSky]

So change it to Oikophile vs Xenophile.

Xenophiles like alien cultures. Oikophiles like their own culture.

 

[Casko]

About militarism - in stellaris militarism is evil. With rl logic it should not be only evil. Stellaris does not allow for coplmpetetive sparings, only wars. Rivals are enemies, never goals we want to achieve in terms of power.

Even Militarists aren't evil. as this too, can be gone around with many forms. such as "Strong Military brings peace" and "talk softly and carry a big stick", to "you have a shiny rock, I beat you till you give rock" at various levels of extreme.
Not to mention America does sure love to bring democracy by bombing nations to stone age after all....

Plus War, after all, is just politics by other means.

So if we lump militarism as evil we might as well say that egalitarian politics are the original sin.

 

[Kataclyszm]

I would like to point out that while it would be reasonable to look at Phobe/Phile as a morality bar, only Spiritaulist is REQUIRED to commit atrocities. Phobe can just give everyone residence and high living standards (which can be useful for isolationists with presapients and pre-FTLs. Spiritualist MUST enslave or purge sapient robots.

It's not an atrocity if they aren't actually thinking beings. We don't say we 'enslave' toasters. Just because they sometimes make talking noises doesn't make them people, Materialist Fool!

 

[Newbee53]

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

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.

Not to mention America does sure love to bring democracy by bombing nations to stone age after all....

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.