• We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Status
Not open for further replies.

Stellaris Dev Diary #54 - Ethics Rework

Hello everyone and welcome to another Stellaris development diary. Now that 1.4 is out, we can finally start properly talking about the 1.5 'Banks' update, which will be a major update with an accompanying (unannounced) expansion. As of right now we cannot provide any details on when 1.5 will come out, or anything about the unannounced expansion, so please don't ask. :)

Today's topic is a number of changes coming to ethics in the 1.5 update. Everything in this diary is part of the free update. Please note that values shown in screenshots are always non-final.

Authoritarian vs Egalitarian
One of the things in Stellaris I was never personally happy with was the Collectivism vs Individualism ethic. While interesting conceptually, the mechanics that the game presented for the ethics simply did not match either their meanings or flavor text, meaning you ended up with a Collectivist ethos that was somehow simultaneously egalitarian and 100% in on slavery, while Individualism was a confused jumble between liberal democratic values and randian free-market capitalism. For this reason we've decided to rebrand these ethics into something that should both be much more clear in its meaning, and match the mechanics as they are.

Authoritarian replaces Collectivist and represents belief in hierarchial rule and orderly, stratified societies. Authoritarian pops tolerate slavery and prefer to live in autocracies.
Egalitarian replaces Individualist and represents belief in individual rights and a level playing field. Egalitarian pops dislike slavery and elitism and prefer to live in democracies.

While I understand this may cause some controversy and will no doubt spark debate over people's interpretation of words like Authoritarian and Individualist, I believe that we need to work with the mechanics we have, and as it stand we simply do not have good mechanics for a Collectivism vs Individualism axis while the mechanics we have fit the rebranded ethics if not perfectly then at least a whole lot better.
2016_12_08_1.png

2016_12_08_5.png


Pop Ethics Rework
Another mechanic that never quite felt satisfying is the ethics divergence mechanic. Not only is it overly simplified with just a single value determining if pops go towards or from empire ethics, the shift rarely makes sense: Why would xenophobe alien pops diverge away from xenophobe just because they're far away from the capital of a xenophobic empire? Furthermore, the fact that pops could have anything from one to three different ethics made it extremely difficult to actually quantify what any individual pop's ethics actually mean for how they relate to the empire. For this reason we've decided to revamp the way pop ethics work in the following way:
  • Each pop in your empire will now only embrace a single, non-fanatic ethic. At the start of the game, your population will be made of up of only the ethics that you picked in species setup, but as your empire grows, its population will become more diverse in their views and wants.
  • Each ethic now has an attraction value for each pop in your empire depending on both the empire's situation and their own situation. For example, enslaved pops tend to become more egalitarian, while pops living around non-enslaved aliens become more xenophilic (and pops living around enslaved aliens more xenophobic). Conversely, fighting a lot of wars will increase the attraction for militarism across your entire empire, while an alien empire purging pops of a particular species will massively increase the attraction for xenophobic for the species being purged.
  • Over time, the ethics of your pops will drift in such a way that it roughly matches the overall attraction of that value. For example, if your materialist attraction sits at 10% for decades, it's likely that after that time, around 10% of your pops will be materialist. There is some random factor so it's likely never going to match up perfectly, but the system is built to try and go towards the mean, so the more overrepresented an ethic is compared to its attraction, the more likely pops are to drift away from it and vice versa.
2016_12_08_3.png


So what does the single ethic per pop mean in terms of how it affects pop happiness? Well, this brings us to the new faction system, which we will cover briefly in this dev diary, and get back to more in depth later.

Faction Rework
One thing we feel is currently missing from Stellaris is agency for your pops. Sure, they have their ethics and will get upset if you have policies that don't suit them, but that's about the only way they have of expressing their desires, and there is no tie-in between pop ethics and the politics systems in the game. To address this and also to create a system that will better fit the new pop ethics, we've decided to revamp the faction system in the following manner:
  • Factions are no longer purely rebel groupings, but instead represent political parties, popular movements and other such interest groups, and mostly only consist of pops of certain ethics. For example, the Supremacist faction desires complete political dominance for their own species, and is made up exclusively of Xenophobic pops, while the Isolationist faction wants diplomatic isolation and a strong defense, and can be joined by both Pacifist and Xenophobe pops. You do not start the game with any factions, but rather they will form over the course of the game as their interests become relevant
  • Factions have issues related to their values and goals, and how well the empire responds to those issues will determine the overall happiness level of the faction. For example, the Supremacists want the ruler to be of their species and are displeased by the presence of free alien populations in the empire. They will also get a temporary happiness boost whenever you defeat alien empires in war.
  • The happiness level of a faction determines the base happiness of all pops belonging to it. This means that where any pop not belonging to a faction has a base happiness of 50%, a pop belonging to a faction that have their happiness reduced to 35% because of their issues will have a base happiness of only 35% before any other modifiers are applied, meaning that displeasing a large and influential faction can result in vastly reduced productivity across your empire. As part of this, happiness effects from policies, xenophobia, slavery, etc have been merged into the faction system, so engaging in alien slavery will displease certain factions instead of having each pop individually react to it.
  • Factions have an influence level determined by the number of pops that belong to it. In addition to making its pops happier, a happy faction will provide an influence boost to their empire.
2016_12_08_4.png

2016_12_08_2.png


We will come back to factions in greater detail in a later dev diary, going over topics such as how separatists and rebellious slaves will work, and how factions can be used to change your empire ethics, but for now we are done for today. Next week we'll be talking about another new feature that we have dubbed 'Traditions and Unity'. See you then!
 
Last edited:
  • 367
  • 53
  • 17
Reactions:
The problem with this system is that it suggest that Authoritarian society is not equal based on some social aspects. But that if it isn't equal based on physiology? Authoritarian is all about oppression, but that if there is no oppression - only roles defined by physiology? And the person of "ruler" defined by biology. It's not only about ants and such - the whole lot of pack animals have predefined roles, some of them being very grim ones. But are they "oppressed" by pack leader? Or it's a necessity?

Authoritarianism does not necessitate oppression. You're free to ban slavery and roleplay a benevolent autocrat, but it doesn't make your society in any way equal. As for things like hive minds, as I said, they can't really be done well under the current ethics system period, this does not change that.
 
  • 34
  • 4
  • 3
Reactions:
Dear Wiz, I am afraid there are two very different meanings for Egalitarianism:
- Legal egalitarianism
- Social egalitarianism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egalitarianism

While the first is a necessary part of a liberal society, the second is quite opposed to it and it is usually associated to authoritarian social organizations. So naming an ethos 'Egalitarianism' is going to create a lot of confusion.
 
  • 80
  • 36
  • 1
Reactions:
I notice that the icons for individualism and collectivism are completely gone, and have a question:

Are the old ethos gone forever, completely replaced by the new ones? Or have you made the distinction between, say, collectivist/authoritarian so that both ethos exist, they are just different. (Authoritarian gets all the slavery techs, collectivist gets the cooperative techs like ministry of benevolence, social welfare and frontier collectives)

I know I would certainly prefer to have both, since a player could choose to be say, authoritarian collectivist or egalitarian collectivist. Though it appears a small difference, the populous of both governments would be managed totally differently. Thoughts?

They're gone. I'm not ruling out that they might return, but only if we have mechanics to actually support them.
 
  • 19
  • 17
  • 2
Reactions:
Concerned about the ethics drift.

Why would pops start without a fanatic version of traits if your empire starts as fanatics?

If you have fanatic empire ethics you get a higher attraction towards that ethic, so overall more of your population will follow it.
 
  • 33
  • 2
Reactions:
Two quick follow-up questions:
-Can pops only join a single faction?
-Is the attraction of a certain faction an empire-wide or planet-wide value?

1) Yes.
2) It's pop-dependent, much like attraction to ethics. There are empire wide factors though, ofc.
 
  • 31
  • 1
Reactions:
Overall it sounds good to me.

Will there be any new techs that will affect all pops of all factions alike?
Like a social tech presenting a new way of thinking(f.e. "they now what they are doing" - gives +5% base happiness to all factions in a autocratic government type)

Will there be any distinction between local and global?
Meaning pops will look mostly on their planet regarding ethics. (f.e. democratic societies could research something like "planetary senate", which will reduce the chance of pops with ethos different to government to join a global, empire wide faction.) What about "information quarantine"? How will it effect my empire?

In general, will there be ways to manage pop behaviour somewhat besides politics? I am guessing edicts will get a rework as well to match the new systems, right?

Each pop has its own individual attraction to each ethic, so local conditions definitely matter.
 
  • 30
Reactions:
I feel like factions in autocratic empires should have some extra focus (over democracies) over what the leader of the faction wants rather than what the people want. Also, it'd be cool if autocracies tended to focus on governor (of sectors especially) faction leaders and said governors were auto generated (and possibly assigned?) and could have both the normal good traits and some very bad ones that would influence what they want (as opposed to what the people want)

On the flip side it'd feel nice, and further help differentiate democracies and autocracies, if democracies often presented either popular demands from the people or demands for referendums (followed by actions) from the people. These demands would of course be accompanied by little influence/empire modifier rewards.

So autocracies would be more (although not entirely) about managing the powerful, while democracies would be about managing the people and acceding to their demands (or weathering their wrath) occasionally.


Also, will pops tend to migrate so that factions gather on particular planets/sectors? It'd require pops being able to swap with another pop instead of the current system where they try to fill an empty slot and stop migrating if it's filled. Maybe faction leaders in non-migration allowed empires could occasionally try to move pops around (with your permission) to gather their support. This would nicely fill the "far flung parts of the empire rebel" thing that distance from capital causing ethics divergence used to do because while it made no sense for a xenophobe far from the capital to suddenly start liking aliens because of that distance, it does make sense for a xenophile in a xenophobe empire to move to the fringes of society and to new colonies.
 
  • 29
Reactions:
Exciting! Banks is gonna be 'the' patch. Traditions sounds interesting too, they sound very EU4 like.



Will we be notified when this is happening, if it's relevant to pops in our empire? The only way to tell if this is happening currently is if you periodically check AI planets.

Will we be notified if conditions change that effect ethics drift, especially if it's not something we've initiated?

More (optional) information about what's going on in other empires is one of my aims for 1.5 (that is not a 100% ironclad promise though).
 
  • 23
  • 6
Reactions:
What if I want a Authoritarian utopia where everyone have everything while i'm the Benevolent Dictator? Authoritarian is not oposed to Egalitarian in any way. This name don't make any sense. Hell, even Space Soviet Union can't be made because his communism is an authoritarian egalitarian regime.
The IRL Soviet Union was not "egalitarian" in reality, is the problem with that objection. It was controlled by an elite that claimed to be acting for the people but in reality were not.

As for an Authoritarian Utopia... that's, uh, basically the Enlightened Monarchy. Authoritarian as hell, but focused on the good of the people.
 
  • 27
  • 3
  • 2
Reactions:
Yeah, instead we have discussion on how egalitarian means socialism which means authoritarian.

...Seriously what the, do people outside America consider socialism to be form of totalitarianism? I thought that Americans keep getting it wrong because they have hate for communism and confuse socialism and communism together, meanwhile rest of the world is pretty "Eh, Nordic countries seem to enjoy it" about it.
Nah, "Socialism = Authoritarian" is a pretty strongly American sentiment. The vast majority of the world understands that, say, socialized healthcare is a Good Thing and that letting people die because they're broke is insane.
 
  • 28
Reactions:
Will factions cause problems if not cared for? Will Spiritualists start to hate me when I mass-produce robots and so on? That'd be some awesome RP potential if expanded on.

This will be covered in detail in a later dev diary but yes.
 
  • 20
  • 6
Reactions:
Isn't there a really popular mod that adds a bunch of new ethics and governments? Unless Wiz plans to shut down the hooks for modding that, this is just a lot of pissing in the wind. IMHO.

Nah, if anything the new ethics system is far, far more moddable than the old one. Especially the way attraction and factions work.
 
  • 20
  • 6
Reactions:
Fair enough.

One more question, if you don't mind: are ethics the only factor that affects whether or not a pop will join a faction, or are the others - e.g. being on a new colony, working a certain type of tile etc?

Some of the ones in the screenshot don't look especially ethos specific, like the Stellar Pioneers Committee or the Mercantile guild.

There are other factors as well, and not all factions are tied to a specific ethic.
 
  • 24
Reactions:
Yeah, instead we have discussion on how egalitarian means socialism which means authoritarian.

...Seriously what the, do people outside America consider socialism to be form of totalitarianism? I thought that Americans keep getting it wrong because they have hate for communism and confuse socialism and communism together, meanwhile rest of the world is pretty "Eh, Nordic countries seem to enjoy it" about it.
I always found the irrational hate for anything social weird too (it seems social=socialist=communist=stalinist death camps, in some peoples minds) but before we get into more of this discussion, I think the beauty of this update is that it avoids the issue.

You can have both systems in both ethoses now, which is much more realistic. Because it is not that capitalism is inherently egalitarian or communism inherently autocratic (or the other way round) but it depends a lot on how they are applied. Stalinism for instance was ultra autoritarian, but Nordic Socialism is arguably more egalitarian than Neoliberalism (which creates an illusion of choice but has very little actual social mobility)

....damnit I'm getting into the discussion again :p

Let`s just say we have more choice in how we want to envision our societies now. Good job Paradox
 
  • 20
Reactions:
Well, no point arguing about interpretation.
Debating and there's always a point in debating, by debating we explore issues and learn to think in new ways.

Except equality of outcome is authoritian.

Demanding that at least 40% of engineers and sewer workers should be female while 40% of nurses and daycare personnel should be male is authoritarian.
Not nessecerily, if the decision is taken by a dicrect demicracy then I have a very hard time to see how it would be authoritarian.
You can't absolutely define these things. Take the collectivist anarchists for an example their version of anarchism is very different from say Ayn Rand (not a philosopher I know) or Robert Nozick's ideas. At the end of the day we got to accept that words are always open to interpretation, their meaning are context dependent.

What if I want a Authoritarian utopia where everyone have everything while i'm the Benevolent Dictator? Authoritarian is not oposed to Egalitarian in any way. This name don't make any sense. Hell, even Space Soviet Union can't be made because his communism is an authoritarian egalitarian regime.
Then you have taken upon yourself a position where you have more power than anyone else thus it can be argued that it's not egalitarian. You and they are not equal before the aw and that's the core of egalitarianism.
 
  • 19
  • 6
Reactions:
And responding to a clutch of "continuation of the same stupid argument that has been going on since we first learned about the ethics system" posts


Dear Wiz, I am afraid there are two very different meanings for Egalitarianism:
- Legal egalitarianism
- Social egalitarianism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egalitarianism

While the first is a necessary part of a liberal society, the second is quite opposed to it and it is usually associated to authoritarian social organizations. So naming an ethos 'Egalitarianism' is going to create a lot of confusion.

That's some pretty damn good ideas there.

I have but few minor issues:
- Pops get angry not because government acts in opposition to their ethics, but because it acts in opposition to the their faction. That's kinda roundaround? Unless its a cynical: "People don't know whether to get offended until they check if party they vote for is for it or against it", then I'd guess it'd make perfect sense.
- Please don't use this icon for authoritarian. Old collectivist was perfect in the way it symbolised hierarchical society. Or at least make it something funny, like pickelhaube?
- Currently unemployment makes pops turn authoritarian. Why not make it: "Under democracy unemployed pops turn authoritarian, under autocracy unemployed pops turn egalitarian"
- There needs to be "like whatever, man" faction, that includes 50% of your population (average number of people who don't ever vote), who don't care about policies. Yes, the filthy neutrals. Purging them gives you opinion bonuses with everyone else. But not enslaving. Too good for them.
- At least one of possible names for xenophobic/authoritarian faction has to be "%COUNTRYNAME% Deplorables"

It seems "liberal option" is either non-fanatic egalitarian, or default none-of-above (neither authoritarian nor egalitarian).
Moderate Egalitarian is equality of opportunity - classical liberal
Fanatic Egalitarian is equality of outcome - european socialist / american liberal
Both are in some way equality.

What if I want a Authoritarian utopia where everyone have everything while i'm the Benevolent Dictator? Authoritarian is not oposed to Egalitarian in any way. This name don't make any sense. Hell, even Space Soviet Union can't be made because his communism is an authoritarian egalitarian regime.

These terms are all essentially contested there is NO right or wrong answer as to what they mean. That is why you are all utterly convinced you are right.

With the exception of whoever said European Socialism is the same as American Liberalism. You sir, are wrong.
 
  • 18
  • 4
Reactions:
How does a democracy with a very powerful authoritarian government factor into this, though?

I guess they would be at the middle of the scale? It's not like you have to be egalitarian to pick a democratic government.
 
  • 16
  • 1
Reactions:
Will the factions as political movements open up the door for a parliament or congress similar to Vicky 2? That might limit slider or policy options when certain factions are in power or potentially function like the small council in CK2 and have varying degrees of approval authority over player actions like war declaration or purging?

Should absolutely be possible to mod if nothing else.
 
  • 14
  • 3
Reactions:
Status
Not open for further replies.