Should the Authority Type system be updated?

[Tannhäuser Cake]

Or: Authoritative Authority Authoring
Or: "Respect Cartman's Authoritah"

Currently, the Authority system has some issues and room for potential improvement.

• It lacks distinction between Representative Democracy and Direct/Participatory Democracy, even though they are as distinct from each other as the two autocracies.
• It ties Authority Type and election type too closely together.
  • Dictatorial represents supreme authority that is held by force, and is not hereditary. Imperial represents constitutional authority that is given, and is hereditary. This, however, makes things awkward for two major historical forms of autocracy: absolute monarchy, i.e. autocracy with dictatorial-level power and heredity, and elective monarchy, i.e. autocracy with constitutional limits and non-heredity.
  • Similarly, representative democracies can range from presidential dominance to parliamentary dominance and constitutional requirements for referenda on a number of issues, and can have both direct and indirect elections of rulers and different systems of candidate eligibility/vetting.
• It has no meaning for the Political Power of pops.
  • Contrary to the implications of the names and descriptions of the Authority Types.
  • This is actually a major immersion-breaker, that is hard to ignore once it has been pointed out. How can Civilians and Workers possibly be considered to have the same relative Political Power in a Dictatorial or Imperial state as in a Democratic one, when the Authority Types are all about representing different power structures?
• It has the Authoritarian and Egalitarian ethics limit the Authority Type alternatives, without adding any, reducing those ethics' gameplay range and options.

One way to tackle these issues could be to:

• Split "Democratic" into two distinct types of democracy.
• Introduce an Election Type policy choice, that is limited by Authority Type.
• Replace the two autocracies with two autocracy labels that fit better into a 5-step scale, where the two extremes require Authoritarian and Egalitarian ethics, respectively.
• Move Political Power from Living Standards to Authority Type.

One example of how this could work out would then be:

Authority Type​	Election Types (1)​	Empire Effects​	Ruler Level Effects (besides +5 Edict Fund)​	Political Power E/S/W (5)​	Requirements (6)​
Absolute Autocracy (4)	Imperial Dictatorial -	+25% Ruler experience gain, -1 Leader Pool Size	+5 Edict Fund, -2% Pop Amenities Usage	+9.5/+0.0/-0.5​	Authoritarian (any level)
Constitutional Autocracy (4)	Imperial Dictatorial Oligarchic	+10% Resources from jobs in capital system, -1 Leader Pool Size	+0.25 Max Influence from Power Projection	+8.0/+1.25/-0.25​	Not Egalitarian
Oligarchy	Dictatorial Oligarchic Democratic	+2 Effective Councilor skill, emergency elections allowed	+5% Councilor Experience Gain	+6.0/+2.5/+0.5​	Not Fanatic Egalitarian / Authoritarian
Representative Democracy	Oligarchic Democratic Speaker (2)	+10% Faction approval, elections reset policy & reform cooldowns, +1 Leader Pool Size	+2% Faction Resource Output	+5.0/+2.5/+1.5​	Not Authoritarian
Direct Democracy (3)	- Democratic Speaker (2)	+1 Council Position, Politician jobs replaced with Bureaucrat/Priest jobs, +1 Leader Pool Size	-5 Edict Fund (i.e. net 0)	+4.0/+3.0/+2.0​	Egalitarian (any level)

1. Election Types are here described using the names of the current Authority Types, for the sake of brevity in the cells. "Imperial" means there is a designated heir (using the current Imperial traits), "Dictatorial" uses the Oligarchic election mechanics and rulers rule until they retire whereas proper "Oligarchic" elections are for 20 years, and "Democratic" means democratic elections for 10 years based on faction support and personal merits.
   • Instead of having just 4 basic Authority Types (plus Corporate), this change basically gives each Authority Type two or three subtypes, thereby greatly expanding the number of types of political systems that can be modelled by the Authority Type system:
     

     Authority Type	Hereditary​	Election for life​	Election for 20 years​	Democratic election​	Speaker​
     Absolute Autocracy	Absolute monarchy	Dictatorship	-​	-​	-​
     Constitutional Autocracy	Enlightened monarchy	Elective monarchy (c)	Dictatorial republic (b)	-​	-​
     Oligarchy	-​	Constitutional monarchy	Republic (a)	Elite democracy	-​
     Representative Democracy	-​	-​	Presidential democracy	Representative democracy	Participatory democracy
     Direct Democracy	-​	-​	-​	Constitutional democracy	Direct democracy​

     • a: Come on in, republic lovers! We got aristocratic republics, stratocratic republics, plutocratic republics, technocratic republics, theocratic republics, particratic republics, banana republics, *sniffs* smelly republics. If we don't got it, you don't want it!
     • b: Alternatively, "constitutional dictatorship" - see also Roman dictator.
     • c: A modern example is the Vatican City State.
   • It can also be noted that the separation of authority and election types can pave the way for civics that play around with otherwise unavailable options, such as dictators for equality (Space Napoleon), democracies with hereditary heads of state (Space Britain, or modern constitutional monarchies), or totalitarian democracies (swapping the ruler effects of a democracy for those of an absolute autocracy). This may be especially interesting if the Political Power of the different strata is finally tied to Authority Type.
   • The separation of Authority Type and Election Type also means that Corporate empires could use the entire range of Election Types, limited by ethics. There could be megacorps that are owned by a single, hereditary dynasty, or megacorps where political factions vie for influence.
     • However, it would be desirable to also give Corporate empires a way to select Authority Type, following the change to Political Power. There are several ways this could be done, such as (but not limited to) adding a mirror set of Corporate authorities, or folding Corporate into a new Society/Purpose Type feature that is distinct from the Authority Type, Civic and Origin features.
2. The new "Speaker" election type is a random selection among the Envoys, once every 5 years, with the results announced via a toaster message. This allows the empire to use all of its ordinary leaders in field positions of their choice, without one of them being tied up as the ruler, but this also reduces their outward capacity for diplomatic relations due to an Envoy being tied up in the "ruler" position instead (this can be seen as an abstraction of the empire having a greater focus on internal affairs, and/or of democracies giving their envoys weaker mandates in negotiations).
   • Optionally, perhaps the player should be allowed to designate their favorite candidate among the Envoys, to get that one reselected every time, since it makes no practical difference. Or, the selection could be handled like an actual election, except that there is no Influence cost for picking the winner. If the candidates' skills do not matter, you might as well pick the one you prefer for completely superficial reasons.
   • The gameplay design intent of this "election" type is to basically allow the player to forget about rulers and elections, and just focus on carrying out the will of the people. This alone makes for a substantially different gameplay experience from the other Election Types, and it would also offer Representative Democracy players a way to opt out from Democratic elections if they are too bothered by them (at the cost of getting no benefits from the ruler level bonus, since Envoys lack levels).
3. Direct Democracy, especially when coupled with the Speaker election type, is basically a rejection of rulers and political elites. They cannot use as many edicts as other Authority Types, due to the neutered power of the "ruler" position (having a non-Envoy as "ruler" via Democratic elections is basically only about getting more traits onto the council, and giving that leader more experience gain). However, their greater number of Council Positions means that, besides the immediate benefits of having room for one more leader on the Council, they would be able to handle more Council Agendas than any other Authority Type - an upside to being the most open and inclusive form of government.
   • The rationale for not using a buffed version of the effects of Representative Democracy in Direct Democracy are that 1) rapid post-election policy and reform changes are too authoritarian for a Direct Democracy to stomach, and 2) organised factions matter less in a Direct Democracy than in a Representative Democracy. Put differently: autocracies emphasise the ruler, oligarchies emphasise the Council/leaders, representative democracies emphasise the factions, and direct democracies emphasise (the participation of) the people. The gameplay reason, however, is that the game benefits more from Authority Types offering a more different gameplay experience; just like the difference between Absolute Autocracy and Constitutional Autocracy.
   • Alternatively, instead of the +1 Council Position bonus, leaders could have no Unity costs (within the leader cap).
   • (Materialist would need to replace its "Direct Democracy" government type to avoid confusion. This is reasonable already in the current version of the game, since direct democracy is a matter of egalitarianism and not materialism.)
4. Constitutional Autocracy is here interpreted as meaning that there are constitutional restrictions on the domestic use of the autocrat's power, making them instead focus their (and their empire's) ambitions outward.
5. The values for Political Power were taken straight from Basic Subsistence (Absolute Autocracy), Stratified Economy (Constitutional Autocracy), Academic Privilege (Oligarchy), Decent Conditions (Representative Democracy), and Social Welfare (Direct Democracy). However, other factors could modify these base levels further, such as living standards (material wealth can translate to greater Political Power, Academic Privilege could still boost Specialists), civics (Shared Burdens, Oppressive Autocracy, Technocracy), and/or ethics (Egalitarian adding Political Power to Worker pops seems more thematically appropriate than a bonus to Faction Unity).
6. The requirements essentially mean that:
   • The Fanatic Authoritarian/Egalitarian ethics are restricted to two options, while everyone else has 3 on a sliding scale, and the Authoritarian and Egalitarian ethics now both unlock a unique Authority Type not available to the muggles.
   • Fanatic Authoritarian - Absolute Autocracy, Constitutional Autocracy.
   • Authoritarian - Absolute Autocracy, Constitutional Autocracy, Oligarchy.
   • Neither - Constitutional Autocracy, Oligarchy, Representative Democracy.
   • Egalitarian - Oligarchy, Representative Democracy, Direct Democracy.
   • Fanatic Egalitarian - Representative Democracy, Direct Democracy.

In addition to the above, it can also be pointed out that (mostly) separating Political Power from the Living Standards means that it would be possible for a society to be highly hierarchical yet materially benevolent, something that is impossible under the current design. While the different Political Power configurations of different Authority Types would align better with some Living Standards than others, the player would be able to make different choices based on roleplaying or situational opportunities.


(Potential additional change: to compensate for the loss of the Political Power modifiers, the Living Standards could be endowed with Workforce and job upkeep modifiers that push empires towards different stratum proportions. For instance, empires that rely on a large number of toiling Workers to prop up the upper classes could pair the pop upkeep modifiers with mirroring Workforce and job upkeep modifiers. An empire with many cheap, low-skilled workers could then prop up specialists and elites who, now freed of more menial chores, can focus their efforts on only the most productive tasks and burn through more input resources with less personal effort. Elitist empires could then have fewer but more productive Elites and Specialists, on top of a foundation of more numerous but less productive Workers. Different empires could have vastly different "population pyramids", with free, equal and prosperous societies being characterised by a big middle class, while in other societies a tiny droplet of the population hoards and spends the vast majority of the wealth. This can be contrasted to the current game design, where Stratified Economy describes Elites as having only 10 times the CG/pop of Workers. With the introduction of the new pop system, where fewer numbers of Elite pops can provide the entirety of the Elite Workforce, far greater stratum differences in the CG/pop income-wealth distribution could be represented. In some empires, the number of Elite pops per planet could perhaps be in the 1-10 range, rather than the current multiples of 100. The new pop system has a great, untapped potential for depicting far more diverse socioeconomic conditions, and it seems like a waste to not make good use of it.)


What are your thoughts on the modified Authority Type system depicted above?

What are your thoughts on the current Authority Type system?
Is it fine as it is, or should it be updated?

Spoiler: Edits

Edits made after original posting:

• Strictly minor corrections, such as removing a leftover parenthesis "()" that never was given any content, or changing "Leader Pool size" to "Leader Pool Size".
• Table improvements:
  • Political Power column: shortened the descriptions; first to avoid unwanted extra linebreaks, then to make them fit into a single line and be easier to compare vertically.
  • Requirements column: replaced "degree" with "level" to avoid an unwanted extra linebreak, shortened "Not Fanatic Egalitarian, not Fanatic Authoritarian" to "Not Fanatic Egalitarian / Authoritarian".
  • Empire Effects column: replaced "and" with "&" in the "Representative Democracy" row.
• Replaced "Spokesperson" with the shorter synonym "Speaker".
• Added a mention of "totalitarian democracy".
• Added a caveat about Corporate empires.
• Replaced the list of Authority/Election combinations with a table, which should give a much clearer overview "map" of the new possibilities. Also added the mention about the change in number of political systems enabled by the separation of authority and election types, from 4 to a substantially greater number.
  • Also replaced "vanilla Oligarchy" with "Republic", "Noble, Military, Merchant, Partisan Republic" with "Dictatorial republic", and "One-Party State" with "Constitutional monarchy", and swapped places for "Elite democracy" and "Presidential democracy".
• The ending paragraph, about the possibility of using living standards to alter population proportions, now begins with "Potential additional change", is italicised, and is placed within parentheses.

 

[Metallichydra]

One thing to remember when talking about modifiers to force or incentivize an empire's strata into specific proportions is that it can backfire greatly.
In the example where you have more productive elites and less productive workers, one concern would be that instead of, as you suggested, the player employing a few powerful elites and having large numbers of workers, the meta would become an economy entirely made up of elites and then relying on space mining and solar panels for basic resources.

 

[DarkHelmet110985]

A lot of effort went into writing and formatting the OP so kudos for doing so and admittedly the Authorities do need a fresh coat of paint. My question to you is how do all the Advanced Authorities fit into all of this? Namely if I’m a Representative Democracy and take Genetic(Cloning), what impact, if any, will that have?

 

[Sibericus]

The Corporate Authority would also benefit from being able to select election types. The idea for a Family-Owned corporation would have the Imperial succession type. A sole-proprietor would be Dictatorial. Worker's Cooperative could require Democratic or Spokesperson.

A lot of effort went into writing and formatting the OP so kudos for doing so and admittedly the Authorities do need a fresh coat of paint. My question to you is how do all the Advanced Authorities fit into all of this? Namely if I’m a Representative Democracy and take Genetic(Cloning), what impact, if any, will that have?

Clone Proxies. The Clones are representative of, not equal to their original. Instead of Clone Backups, they get Clone Proxies that are basically a free copy of that leader. Then for mutation you'd have something related to Cladistics and evolutionary families getting representatives, and get bonuses per number of subspecies. I think the representative democracy should get the hands off version of purity democracy while the Purity direct democracy should get a tyranny of the majority. Direct Democracy is generally a good idea, but when concepts of Purity and superiority come into the equation, it can get dark.

 

[DarkHelmet110985]

The Corporate Authority would also benefit from being able to select election types. The idea for a Family-Owned corporation would have the Imperial succession type. A sole-proprietor would be Dictatorial. Worker's Cooperative could require Democratic or Spokesperson.


Clone Proxies. The Clones are representative of, not equal to their original. Instead of Clone Backups, they get Clone Proxies that are basically a free copy of that leader. Then for mutation you'd have something related to Cladistics and evolutionary families getting representatives, and get bonuses per number of subspecies. I think the representative democracy should get the hands off version of purity democracy while the Purity direct democracy should get a tyranny of the majority. Direct Democracy is generally a good idea, but when concepts of Purity and superiority come into the equation, it can get dark.

In a general sense yes but my point has more to do with how Stellaris would handle things. As it is right now, the Advanced Authorities simply take the Empire Effects and swap them out. An example being Democracy goes from +10% Faction approval to 5% Happiness multiplied by Species Genetic Perfection in Phenotypical Autonomy(aka Purity). Leaders also gain a Leader Upkeep and XP gain boost too.

Synthetic and Cybernetic with respect to Imperial completely changes the Ruler Effect depending on which path you take. This is what I mean by what impact, if any, the Advanced Authorities will have. Will it be like it is now and simply swap out the Empire or Ruler Effects or will it be much more in-depth/significant?

PS: What about Cybernetic Creed? That going to be different in any way?

 

[Lazy Name]

I didn't like the idea of separating Constitutional and Absolute Autocracy or tying political power to Authorities at first, but the arguments for it were pretty convincing. I feel like I'd warm up to it fast if it were implemented.

 

[passeris]

Could this be easier done with more civics? You can never have too many civics.

 

[Red Death]

I quite like this idea!

But in order for this to work, they would first have to fix the nonsense that is "Advanced Authorities". They abused the Authority system, which is primarily supposed to determine things like type of ruler and elections, by shoehorning in civic-like (primarily numerical) effects that don't affect authority or elections. Not to mention things like the Synthetic Physical Authorities unlocking modularity traits (Why would you do that?!).

They will have to pull those effects out again in order to properly expand the system.

 

[Metallichydra]

I quite like this idea!

But in order for this to work, they would first have to fix the nonsense that is "Advanced Authorities". They abused the Authority system, which is primarily supposed to determine things like type of ruler and elections, by shoehorning in civic-like (primarily numerical) effects that don't affect authority or elections. Not to mention things like the Synthetic Physical Authorities unlocking modularity traits (Why would you do that?!).

They will have to pull those effects out again in order to properly expand the system.

The current system also forces you to pick one of the advanced authorities or miss out on a ton of benefits, and it also removes all of the government types (Stuff like fanatical befrienders, migratory flock and federation builders).

 

[Falrinn]

I feel like most Advanced Authorities could be reworked as "Ascension Civics" and have their own slot.

In many cases the Advanced Authorities don't have a meaningfully different governing structure than traditional authorities, in terms of story they are just the traditional authority with some laws relevant to your Ascension Path in effect. ie the Democracy Cloning authority is just a Democracy where clones and natural born citizens explicitly have equal rights.

Some rebalancing/rewriting would be needed, but I think it's doable.

Long term this would open up more flexibility with how your ascension path influences your government since you might have options for multiple ascension civics that could be changed later in the game.

 

[RoverStorm]

Wouldn't be a new patch if there wasn't discussion over ethics and authorities.

While we're here, I'm going to suggest once again that "Authoritarian" be renamed to "Hierarchical" or "Stratified".

If you can take "Police State" or use "Thought Enforcement" without requiring "Authoritarianism", then authoritarian is misnamed. Even just logically, Egalitarianism is about Equality. The opposite of equality isn't authority, it's hierarchy. The opposite of authority is anarchy, dissent, or powerlessness depending on which definition you use. And some folks from certain parts of the world are painfully aware that "Authoritarianism" and "Egalitarianism" are quite compatible. Even the "authoritarian" mechanics are about hierarchies.
Take a look at the description of an AI personality that requires "authoritarian": "Harmonious Collectives are authoritarian societies where the citizens are devoted to the state without the need for coercion. They are usually friendly towards others, so long as they do not meddle in their internal affairs."
This "authoritarian society" apparently doesn't use any coercion, prefers friendliness to hostility, and opposes invasions into their personal life.

Then there's the ethic-based authority locking.

To keep it brief, other people have discussed the idea of a sort of "family ownership", where a corporation is passed down among family members. This is pretty common IRL, especially in certain countries. In a similar vein, one could argue that the "Worker Coop" would be better represented as a democracy.
These arguments can extend to normal empires as well. Expanding on that group from above, Egalitarianism and Dictatorship being mutually exclusive is illogical (and deeply offensive to certain peoples). To use a less-modern and less touchy topic one could also make the argument that the Roman and Greek republics were obviously structured like democracies, yet were very stratified.

To summarize that point, I believe we should retire the idea of ethic-restricted authorities.

It can also be noted that the separation of authority and election types can pave the way for civics that play around with otherwise unavailable options, such as dictators for equality (Space Napoleon) or democracies with hereditary heads of state (Space Britain, or modern constitutional monarchies). This may be especially interesting if the Political Power of the different strata is finally tied to Authority Type.

I don't think we should even need a special civic to be able to do this. I think this could just be baseline.

There is a degree I can see where the ethic can restrict the "election options". In a stratified (currently authoritarian) democracy, perhaps only the interest and ethics of the Elite or Elite+Specialist stratum(s) will be relevant for elections. Similarly, if you are a imperial/monarchy under egalitarianism, some degree of election for a Britain style "constitutional monarchy" for a representative seems appropriate. This could also solve the issue of every time you switch to "Imperial" it's a completely new royal family because switching to democracy just kills the old heir and doesn't "remember" the royal family.

Having a flexible policy to control elections that is independant of the government is also I think a very good idea.

While the idea of having no election for democracy is...hilarious, the policy is still a great idea:

Autocracies can distinguish between Absolute, Constitutional, Shadow Puppet, and Figurehead governence.
Oligarchies can distinguish between Representative, Hereditary, Raw Clout, and even Ideological/Religious council leadership.
Democracies could have a difference between "Aristocratic" (such as Rome's Patricians), modern party elections, or...corporatist negotiations.

***

While I do like the idea of the change, I do feel worth mentioning that there is a vast diffference between certain "Monarchs" and "Dictators". Monarchs are almost all descendant from historical warriors and conquerers, while most "Dictatorships" are the result of bureaucratic institutions. When a dictatorship is caused by military intervention, they often go hereditary which is usually what we call a monarchy. When dictatorships are not hereditary, they trend more toward the bureaucratic government focus and are more likely to actually purge, reorganize, or otherwise sabotage their own military to maintain total power, which you don't see in the former type.

Of course, I think a lot of this boils down to that there should be better differences between the internal structures for the four different authorities. But at the same time, I know PDX doesn't want to make the different authhorities "too" different in economic structure so switching between them is as low-pain as possible.

I could go into some further details and examples if anyone cares.

Furthermore, to compensate for the loss of the Political Power modifiers, the Living Standards could be endowed with Workforce and job upkeep modifiers that push empires towards different stratum proportions. For instance, empires that rely on a large number of toiling Workers to prop up the upper classes could pair the pop upkeep modifiers with mirroring Workforce and job upkeep modifiers. An empire with many cheap, low-skilled workers could then prop up specialists and elites who, now freed of more menial chores, can focus their efforts on only the most productive tasks and burn through more input resources with less personal effort. Elitist empires could then have fewer but more productive Elites and Specialists, on top of a foundation of more numerous but less productive Workers.

Others have mentioned this, but one must be careful when trying to "encourage" certain playstyles. Penalizing workers is generally a great way to get them to not use workers at all. Some examples of how they might do this includes focusing on space mining, or vassalizing and taxing the everliving hell out of another empire's basic resources who do not get the penalties.

My suggestion to "create" these societies "naturally" is simple but would requite a LOT of work:

Just make jobs have flexible stratums.

You under that "Oppressive Dystopia" civic? The three stratums are: "Elites" "Enforcers" "Literally everyone else".

You under some of that "Shared Burdens" or "Worker Coop"? Surprise! All jobs are the same stratum; specialist!
(Well, maybe there's two stratums: "Party Members" and "Masses")

Certain civics, ethics, and authorities could "influence" the stratums for specific jobs as well. Militarist? Soldiers are specialists stratum now. "Citizen Service"? They are Elites now, and politicians are demoted to normal bureaucrats. Mining Guilds? Miners are now a specialist job!

I feel like most Advanced Authorities could be reworked as "Ascension Civics" and have their own slot.

I personally think this is a brilliant idea.

 

[BrokenSky]

Authority Type​	Election Types (1)​	Empire Effects​	Ruler Level Effects (besides +5 Edict Fund)​	Political Power (5)​	Requirements (6)​
Absolute Autocracy (4)	Imperial Dictatorial -	+25% Ruler experience gain, -1 Leader Pool size	+5 Edict Fund, -2% Pop Amenities Usage	+9.5 if Elite, +0.0 if Specialist, –0.5 if Worker	Authoritarian (any degree)
Constitutional Autocracy (4)	Imperial Dictatorial Oligarchic	+10% Resources from jobs in capital system, -1 Leader Pool size	+0.25 Max Influence from Power Projection	+8.00 if Elite, +1.25 if Specialist, –0.25 if Worker	Not Egalitarian
Oligarchy	Dictatorial Oligarchic Democratic	+2 Effective Councilor skill, emergency elections allowed	+5% Councilor Experience Gain	+6.0 if Elite, +2.5 if Specialist, +0.5 if Worker	Not Fanatic Egalitarian, not Fanatic Authoritarian
Representative Democracy	Oligarchic Democratic Spokesperson (2)	+10% Faction approval, elections reset policy and reform cooldowns, +1 Leader Pool size	+2% Faction Resource Output	+5.0 if Elite, +2.5 if Specialist, +1.5 if Worker	Not Authoritarian
Direct Democracy (3)	- Democratic Spokesperson (2)	+1 Council Position, Politician jobs replaced with Bureaucrat/Priest jobs, +1 Leader Pool size	-5 Edict Fund (i.e. net 0)	+4 if Elite, +3 if Specialist, +2 if Worker	Egalitarian (any degree)

First of all, I agree with the general premise, but if we're overhauling authorities, I feel the "Authoritarians get smaller leader pools" thing should be changed - I would probably change it to something like:

• Absolute Autocracy: +25% Ruler Experience Gain, -10% Leader Cost, -10% Leader Upkeep
• Constitutional Autocracy: +10% Resources from Capital System Jobs, +1 Leader Starting Level, +15% Leader Upkeep
• Oligarchy: +2 Councillor effective skill, +15% Leader Experience Gain
• Representative Democracy: +10% Faction approval, elections reset policy and reform cooldowns, +1 Max of Each Leader Type
• Direct Democracy: +1 Council Position, Politician jobs replaced with Bureaucrat/Priest jobs, +1 Leader Pool size

Ideally something where every Authority got a different positive modifier?

 

[balmung60]

I quite like this idea!

But in order for this to work, they would first have to fix the nonsense that is "Advanced Authorities". They abused the Authority system, which is primarily supposed to determine things like type of ruler and elections, by shoehorning in civic-like (primarily numerical) effects that don't affect authority or elections. Not to mention things like the Synthetic Physical Authorities unlocking modularity traits (Why would you do that?!).

They will have to pull those effects out again in order to properly expand the system.

Yeah, I really don't like "advanced authorities". Or okay, I like what they do, I just don't like how they do it. Your civics and authority are supposed to determine what your government is and what your ruler is called and such and these just override the civics part of the equation. They should be essentially bonus civics, not shoved into the authority.

 

[Lazy Name]

Even just logically, Egalitarianism is about Equality. The opposite of equality isn't authority, it's hierarchy. The opposite of authority is anarchy, dissent, or powerlessness depending on which definition you use. And some folks from certain parts of the world are painfully aware that "Authoritarianism" and "Egalitarianism" are quite compatible. Even the "authoritarian" mechanics are about hierarchies.

I feel like the definitions of Egalitarian and Authoritarian in Stellaris are based on political equality specifically; Authoritarian Dictatorships can still put everyone under Social Welfare, the people just don't get to vote on that. Authoritarianism and Egalitarianism are usually still opposites in practice, and I feel like any edge cases should be handled by civics instead of a whole ethic rework.

 

[RoverStorm]

whole ethic rework

I suggested a name change for exactly one ethic (authoritarian->stratification), I explicitly did not suggest changing the ethic.

I suggested revisiting authorities and their relation to ethics, as does most of this post, but not the ethics themselves. I think the stratified/egalitarian axis is very good at representing opposing policies and societal beliefs. One around societal equality, and one around hierarchies and social statuses. My point is that the name is incorrect, not that the ethic needs to be changed.

Authoritarian Dictatorships can still put everyone under Social Welfare, the people just don't get to vote on that.

The reverse of this logic is also true; Egalitarians can also enact explicitly authoritarian policies, such as migration controls, population controls, and even academic privilege that explicitly satisfies the authoritarian faction. And if it goes against what the 90% support egalitarian faction wants and directly upsets them, it's also not something the people got to vote on.

I feel like the definitions of Egalitarian and Authoritarian in Stellaris are based on political equality specifically;

I agree it includes political equality-that's a very big part. And that's not exclusive with authoritarianism. It is not hard to imagine a democracy with elected officials enforcing a very strict lifestyle on it's members, the vast majority of which voted specifically for that outcome.

Unless you mean equality of different ideas, in which case the in-game egalitarianism doesn't represent this almost at all. Generally speaking egalitarian things cause egalitarian attraction. If they were all about that "political idea equality", you wouldn't have that you'd have a drift toward a balanced set of ethics. They do get a policy that can encourage ethic switching, with no affect on the outcome, but that is typically going to be much stronger to convert to egalitarianism rather than the reverse.

Authoritarianism and Egalitarianism are usually still opposites in practice

Again the wording here is confusing. In Stellaris, yeah my complaint isn't that the mechanics are bad, it's that I think authoritarian is a bad name.

If you mean IRL, I say your own wording proves my point. "Usually" is vastly different from "always".

In Stellaris, opposite ethics are very clearly meant to be opposites in practically 100% of cases.
Militarists and Pacifists are very clearly opposite ethics.
So are Xenophobic and Xenophilic.
Spiritualist and Materialist are slightly weirder, but the idea is there. Spiritualists care about everything Materialists believe are smoke-and-mirrors.
Authoritarian and Egalitarian represent opposite mechanics, but the phrase "Authoritarian" also sometimes includes Egalitarianism and also doesn't always include what the game labels as Authoritarian Ethics. "Stratified" or "Hierarchical" would cleanly fix this issue.

 

[mergele]

Meh. It coul, but its also doing its job just fine atm.

 

[Kava]

What are your thoughts on the current Authority Type system?
Is it fine as it is, or should it be updated?

I think it would be interesting if factions played a bigger role in government and you could face issues if you're giving citizenship to a lot of pops with opposing ethics.

 

[TheConundrum]

You're kinda missed the Xenoprobe "modifier" on the governments - ie how a species system affects pop power and participation. If 95% of your speces are non-participatory, can you really be treated the same as an FanEgal's?

Frankly you also have other modifiers to this, Citizen Servive is a clear play on Roman citizenship bar, which is a form of class system.

Furthermore a Roman dictator was originally installed for emergency means, which doesn't mean that pop power is reduced as the tribune of the plebs still have ultimate control.

I kinda like the idea of having an "emergency measures" edict to supress PP/suspend elections while at war and +10 happiness to -10happyness scaled by attrition or warscore.

 

[Lazy Name]

I suggested a name change for exactly one ethic (authoritarian->stratification), I explicitly did not suggest changing the ethic.

I suggested revisiting authorities and their relation to ethics, as does most of this post, but not the ethics themselves. I think the stratified/egalitarian axis is very good at representing opposing policies and societal beliefs. One around societal equality, and one around hierarchies and social statuses. My point is that the name is incorrect, not that the ethic needs to be changed.


The reverse of this logic is also true; Egalitarians can also enact explicitly authoritarian policies, such as migration controls, population controls, and even academic privilege that explicitly satisfies the authoritarian faction. And if it goes against what the 90% support egalitarian faction wants and directly upsets them, it's also not something the people got to vote on.


I agree it includes political equality-that's a very big part. And that's not exclusive with authoritarianism. It is not hard to imagine a democracy with elected officials enforcing a very strict lifestyle on it's members, the vast majority of which voted specifically for that outcome.

Unless you mean equality of different ideas, in which case the in-game egalitarianism doesn't represent this almost at all. Generally speaking egalitarian things cause egalitarian attraction. If they were all about that "political idea equality", you wouldn't have that you'd have a drift toward a balanced set of ethics. They do get a policy that can encourage ethic switching, with no affect on the outcome, but that is typically going to be much stronger to convert to egalitarianism rather than the reverse.


Again the wording here is confusing. In Stellaris, yeah my complaint isn't that the mechanics are bad, it's that I think authoritarian is a bad name.

If you mean IRL, I say your own wording proves my point. "Usually" is vastly different from "always".

In Stellaris, opposite ethics are very clearly meant to be opposites in practically 100% of cases.
Militarists and Pacifists are very clearly opposite ethics.
So are Xenophobic and Xenophilic.
Spiritualist and Materialist are slightly weirder, but the idea is there. Spiritualists care about everything Materialists believe are smoke-and-mirrors.
Authoritarian and Egalitarian represent opposite mechanics, but the phrase "Authoritarian" also sometimes includes Egalitarianism and also doesn't always include what the game labels as Authoritarian Ethics. "Stratified" or "Hierarchical" would cleanly fix this issue.

Okay, most of your criticisms are fair. I see your point, where the Authoritarian ethic combines different ideas; I would just argue that that's not specific to Authoritarian or the Auth-Egal axis, nor a problem in Stellaris.

Stellaris Ethics are broad strokes; Militarist combines those who enjoy warfare, and those who don't but consider it necessary. Xenophobe combines those who are actively irrationally discriminatory, and those who are just generally wary of the unknown. The Ethics are all usually opposites, but I can also think of edge cases for the others that don't obviously match one or the other. Is a nation with a more militaristic culture dedicated purely to defence Pacifist or Militarist? Is a nation which loves alien species and cultures but doesn't consider them equal persons Xenophile or Xenophobe?

Similarly, Auth-Egal combines ideas of political hierarchy vs equality with ideas of oppressiveness vs equity, which usually but don't always go together. Consider the ethic descriptions for Fanatic Egal:

"Beware always those who would be despots, under the false presumption that their desires and agendas are somehow more imperative than those of their fellows. A society that does not see to the needs and rights of all of its members is not a society - it is a crime."

Under this equity focused definition of Egalitarian, a "democracy with elected officials enforcing a very strict lifestyle on it's members, the vast majority of which voted specifically for that outcome" would be un-Egalitarian so long as there remains a minority that this oppressive majority is not seeing to properly. If you used the regular Egalitarian description, though:

"Any society that does not embrace equality between its members - where an individual can rise to any position with enough hard work - is not only deeply unfair, but ultimately counterproductive."

Then this theoretical democracy would seem to fit fine into Egalitarian, because this is a more equality based definition of Egalitarian, which isn't inherently opposed to oppression by the masses.

I would argue that this theoretical nation, like all the other edge cases I mentioned, should either be considered in the middle of the axis or have a dedicated civic for it. Stellaris Ethics aren't the place for clean, clear philosophical systems; they're vague directions, and Egalitarian and Authoritarian function as vaguely opposite directions to each other.

 

[Ikael]

I would love to see an authority update on that vein, along with a revision of advanced authorities, but I understand that those currently have a very low priority for the developers (understandably so).

I would also like to focus attention on poor Gestalts and their authority. Their lack of unique council positions and ethics bonuses certainly would merit something in return in order to compensate. I have thought extensively about the possibility of designing gestalt "instincts", but that's certainly on the "nice to have" cathegory, rather than a must.