• 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:
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:
This is pretty simple.

In the game, "Egalitarian" = "Everyone has the same freedoms and opportunities". This favours democracies, because democracies give everyone a say.

Meanwhile, "Authoritarian" = "Different people have different rights that can be dictated to them". This favours autocratic governments, because a few can dictate to the many.

Hence, Egalitarian POPs will not like being dictated to, even if the dictator has their best interests at heart.

I still feel like it holds true only most of the time.

A military dictatorship or Despotic Hegemonic might in theory be egalitarian in that anyone can ascend the ranks of the empire regardless of their background, as long as they have the talent to do so, and at the same time ensure that subjects in their individual capacity are free to do as they please, they just won't be handed authority over others unless they can prove their worth. Humans are terrible at preventing nepotism and corruption in autocratic regimes, aliens of a different average mentality might not be (See: Turians of Mass Effect)

Meanwhile, a democracy can be tyrannical, especially if it does not have ground rules ensuring some protection of the minority (basic laws ensuring right to privacy, equality before the law, equality of opportunity), be they others of the same species or xenos. The military republic isn't there just for show (though the terrible bonuses makes it sort of questionable to use)

I'm okay with this change overall as long as a democratic yet xenophobic empire might still agree that the filthy xenos don't have the moral competence or intellectual capacity to truly decide of matters of state or deserve any rights.
 
  • 7
Reactions:
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.

Ok, good, I wasn't suddenly transported into some type of mirror world then xD
 
  • 2
Reactions:
I still feel like it holds true only most of the time.

A military dictatorship or Despotic Hegemonic might in theory be egalitarian in that anyone can ascend the ranks of the empire regardless of their background, as long as they have the talent to do so, and at the same time ensure that subjects in their individual capacity are free to do as they please, they just won't be handed authority over others unless they can prove their worth. Humans are terrible at preventing nepotism and corruption in autocratic regimes, aliens of a different average mentality might not (See: Turians of Mass Effect)

Meanwhile, a democracy can be tyrannical, especially if it does not have ground rules ensuring some protection of the minority (basic laws ensuring right to privacy, equality before the law, equality of opportunity), be they others of the same species or xenos.

I'm okay with this change overall as long as a democratic yet xenophobic empire might still agree that the filthy xenos don't have the moral competence or intellectual capacity to truly decide of matters of state or deserve any rights.
There's complexities to the issue, sure, but overall it makes total sense that, as a game mechanic, a population that identified as Egalitarian would Not Be Pleased to be living under an explicit (if benevolent) dictatorship like a Enlightened Monarchy, but would be much more okay living in a functionally stratified but ostensibly equal society such as a Plutocratic Oligarchy or a Military Republic.
 
  • 5
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:
There's complexities to the issue, sure, but overall it makes total sense that, as a game mechanic, a population that identified as Egalitarian would Not Be Pleased to be living under an explicit (if benevolent) dictatorship like a Enlightened Monarchy, but would be much more okay living in a functionally stratified but ostensibly equal society such as a Plutocratic Oligarchy or a Military Republic.

Agreed, there's a reason I used the military dictatorship and despotic hegemony as examples instead of the monarchical forms, which simply can't be entirely egalitarian when the highest position itself is hereditary.

I suddenly feel very self-conscious about living in a constitutional monarchy.
 
My rant thread from months ago has been vindicated!

I agree with previous comments that people's attitude towards wars can be quite complicated. I suppose the simplest way would be to model a decrease in militarism the longer a war goes on, but have a big boost after a victory.

A more complicated idea would be to have peace terms affect pops attitudes - a harsh treaty would decrease militarism for the winner and increase it for the loser.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
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.

Socialist policies can be egalitarian, where I would put any stuff regarding the basic necessities of life including health care as being so, but the tendency for many modern socialist democratic policies to argue for more state control of people's lives and setting quotas in the private sphere is where they cross the line to too authoritarian for me.
 
  • 6
  • 5
  • 1
Reactions:
Hey, nice dev diary, but i must oppose the ethics rework, why not adding? instead of replacing?
 
  • 5
  • 4
Reactions:
Socialist policies can be egalitarian, where I would put any stuff regarding the basic necessities of life including health care as being so, but the tendency for many modern socialist democratic policies to argue for more state control of people's lives and setting quotas in the private sphere is where they cross the line to too authoritarian for me.
While again there are subtitles and complexities to the issue, the basic fact that Americans as a generalized (and political) whole have a kneejerk reaction against anything described as a "socialist" policy (including taking care of the poor) is pretty easily observable. But this is veering a bit strongly into real-world politics and I'm sure the moderators would prefer we kept away from that.

Hey, nice dev diary, but i must oppose the ethics rework, why not adding? instead of replacing?
Because they don't have a mechanic for "Individualist vs. Collectivist" to influence.
 
  • 14
Reactions:
That sounds very nice indeed.

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.
Finally. The unchangingness of Empire Ethics was the one thing that made modelling Historical Empires so damn hard.

Will the Ethocs buildings be re-design to have changing effect based on Empire Ethos?
 
No, ethics will not be concentrated like this, though planets may have very different ethic makeups based on local conditions.

Rebellions will be covered in a later dev diary.

Asking a sensible question to @Wiz regarding this answer - having migration to worlds by faction members where there are the highest concentration of faction members (or where a governor who is faction leader is) would be really fun, and would completely fit with these new mechanics.
 
  • 5
Reactions:
Could we get events or "missions" from the different factions in regards to fulfilling different goals, which would then provide bonusses/negatives depending on faction?

What im thinking here is:
Egalitarian faction sees bordering empire have slaves. They want you to "free" the slaves and put the masters in their place. Thus giving you bonus for egalitarian and militarism if you choose to attack and free.
You are at war, Pacfist faction have had enough and want you to bring peace. you could either white peace, peace for small deal or ignore the idealists.
Have large militarist faction, have been at peace for quite some time and are stronger than neighbours. Propose conquest for trophies.

What im fishing for is more story driven midgame which gives incentive to expand the empire or see some people as friends/enemies. If its at all possible its something i would love to see in the game. And it could be tied into the Traits which could open more options like ruler traits does in EUIV.

This would also give some ways to steer nation in regards to factions too if different answers/choice boosted/reduced different factions.
 
  • 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:
Looks like I'm going to do a lot of micromanaging to put my pops with authoritarian beliefs on mineral and food deposits so that they won't be pissed when I enslave them.
 
So you, basically:
1. removing fanatic bonus for pops (leaving it only for empire as a whole)
2. leaving only one ethic per pop (that results in way less happiness for most ehtic combinations)

Am I to understand that you now want people to choose non-fanatic ethics for empire, based on amount of +happiness/-divergence buildings they get? (and provide no info whatsoever on that topic during empire creation)
 
  • 2
  • 1
Reactions:
Status
Not open for further replies.