New Ethics

[Honon]

I have found a that I have difficulty approximating an imperial meritocracy with the current ethics system. I initially thought to use militarist/egalitarian. However, you cannot have an imperial government with egalitarian ethics (understandably). While I originally equated meritocracy with egalitarianism, they are in fact different ethics. One is comparable with the imperial system (meritocracy) while the other is anathema to it (egalitarianism). I believe it would be interesting to have a meritocratic/determinative spectrum of ethics.

The determinative side of the spectrum would represent inherited or assigned social status like a noble society or cyberpunk society dominated a group of power rich family owned corporations. The meritocratic side could represent an warrior society were the strongest fighters lead or a bureaucratic empire where skilled professionals fill most positions of power. A society could be meritocratic even where its ruler is inherited if the majority of influential positions are assigned to professional bureaucrats.

This spectrum could affect leadership with determintive, for example, lowering leadership costs; and meritocratic perhaps increasing leader level cap.

 

[Archael90]

Well, i see no problem with current ethics to achive something like that... just to not take an ethic within egalitarian/authoritarian axis.
What You have described is something between those two ethics, which causes a problem. If something like that would be comparable with egalitarian/authoritarian it would have less sense, and if it would be not comparable with any of them, then its not an ethic, its more like a civic... and there is a civic called "meritocracy", but it requried you to not have autocratic government, but you still can have "aristocratic elite" civic with nobles as group of power without true autocratic government.

 

[Honon]

I understand your point, and I currently do approximate the empire with a military/materialist imperial government (attempting to approximate the humankind empire Ahb from crest of the stars). But I think the Meritocracy civic highlights the problem with equating a "meritocracy" with an "egalitarian" society. While the two concepts have some similarities, they are very distinct. One is a determination on how positions of influence are assigned and one refers to the evaluation of individual worth. You could have an entirely meritocratic society which entirely rejects egalitarianism like a technocracy that assigns special privileges to the scientific elite while rendering less capable citizens to a 2nd class status. A historical example may be certain periods in Chinese society where positions of influence were provided to highly capable bureaucrats who in turn indulged in outside privileges denied others. At the same time, there have been autocratic states where power not supposed to be inherited selected based on the meritorious (such as Vatican City). (Vatican city is also a good example of meritocracy and egalitarianism not being co-requisites.)

Perhaps, gameplay wise, your discussions of civics may be a different solution then a new ethics path. Maybe allowing autocratic governments to have use the meritocracy civic would accomplish what the post intended without the need of a new ethics branch.

 

[Morbus Bubbonicus]

I would rather see existing ethics working rather than adding new ones. At least make ethincs matter instad of being +0.81% to mineral production or +1.000002 happiness.

 

[Honon]

I would rather see existing ethics working rather than adding new ones. At least make ethincs matter instad of being +0.81% to mineral production or +1.000002 happiness.

Fair enough I'm more interested being the roleplay then the mechanics for this game. So, I'm not as concerned with the affects of the mechanics as long as they aren't gamebreaking.

 

[MK1980]

i think there is too much overlap with the already existing autoritarian vs egalitarian axis to make the suggested new axis worthwhile.

the imperial meritocracy you described could just be a civic that changes the government name and adds some modifier or unique effect to a generic imperial or dictatorial system - don't think it's worthwhile to introduce a whole new axis of ethics to represent such details.

 

[Honon]

i think there is too much overlap with the already existing autoritarian vs egalitarian axis to make the suggested new axis worthwhile.

the imperial meritocracy you described could just be a civic that changes the government name and adds some modifier or unique effect to a generic imperial or dictatorial system - don't think it's worthwhile to introduce a whole new axis of ethics to represent such details.

As pointed above Meritocracy isn't egalitarianism. Merit based systems do not address equality concerns. Most corporations are meritocratic, but you would not call them meritocratic.

As far as civics are concerned. i already discussed and accepted that opening up meritocratic civics for imperial government may be fine.

 

[Mastikator]

It's already possible to represent the kind of empire you want in the game with the current ethics and civics at hand. The roleplaying aspect of Stellaris is IMO very strong, the weakness is that some roleplaying options are significantly weaker (and therefore some RP is "better" than other RP)
Authoritarian, Militarist, Materialist ethos
Dictatorship authority
Warrior Culture and Merchant Guilds civics (later add Shadow Council)

 

[Archael90]

Just to clarify (im not saying You have said something wrong)

(and therefore some RP is "better" than other RP)

There is no better, or "better" RP (in terms of mechanics of course, someone can just poorly immerse). Whenever someone thinks that, this is no more RP. So its binary.

 

[Mastikator]

Just to clarify (im not saying You have said something wrong)

There is no better, or "better" RP (in terms of mechanics of course, someone can just poorly immerse). Whenever someone thinks that, this is no more RP. So its binary.

I don't think there is any better or worse types of empires to RP as. Stellaris does. Some kinds of RP are always rewarded by the game, some kinds are always punished.

 

[Archael90]

I don't think there is any better or worse types of empires to RP as. Stellaris does. Some kinds of RP are always rewarded by the game, some kinds are always punished.

Yes, but RPing by its own is not better just because mechanic rewards it

 

[Honon]

No one said that it is, and if you are trying to engage in a RP vs Mechanics or a flexibility vs balance debate, I will have to decline. I'm sorry.

 

[Honon]

It's already possible to represent the kind of empire you want in the game with the current ethics and civics at hand. The roleplaying aspect of Stellaris is IMO very strong, the weakness is that some roleplaying options are significantly weaker (and therefore some RP is "better" than other RP)
Authoritarian, Militarist, Materialist ethos
Dictatorship authority
Warrior Culture and Merchant Guilds civics (later add Shadow Council)

Actually it is very difficult because of the fact that meritocracy is married to egalitarianism in game. While I am trying to approximate an imperial meritocracy. For example, you cannot have meritocratic civics at all with imperialism. Moreover, Authoritarianism doesn't have anything to do with meritocratic society and the game actually positions it as opposite to meritocracy. (for that matter, while a warrior culture can be meritocratic, it doesn't have to be and merchant guilds also doesn't speak to meritocracy).

I think you miss understand the point I was making in the immediately preceding post. Accordingly, I think you have mistaken my examples of potential societies which would be meritocratic without being egalitarian with societies I'm trying to play. The point in that post is that meritocracy =/= egalitarianism. They deal with different issues and address different problems.

I also agree that the RP aspects of the game are strong. In fact, It seems that the RP elements and society creation elements of the game are the defining elements of the game. That does not mean that individual player suggestions are and opinions are based on the assumption that Stellaris is an RP game. The earlier posters appeared to be mechanics players who want to be able to make/abuse major game decisions. Having those be related to a RP concept is fine, but ultimately, they find that the gameplay decisions are more important than the RP design type decisions. That is a valid value, but its different than my values which prefers more choices and more precise choices to the specific gameplay impact or balance of any single decision. That is also a valid value.

However, if you are a mechanics person, then the best way to make the game better for you is for the choices you have to have stronger affects. If you come from my point of view then the best improvements add more options and make more precise delineations within society. We will never agree on the outcome, because we do not agree on the basic values. The values aren't based on logic so there isn't any basis to expect the other person to change their mind. Instead of argueing for the sake of argueing, isn't it better to try to understand what the other person wants to accomplish with their suggestions?

 

[Mastikator]

Actually it is very difficult because of the fact that meritocracy is married to egalitarianism in game. While I am trying to approximate an imperial meritocracy. For example, you cannot have meritocratic civics at all with imperialism. Moreover, Authoritarianism doesn't have anything to do with meritocratic society and the game actually positions it as opposite to meritocracy. (for that matter, while a warrior culture can be meritocratic, it doesn't have to be and merchant guilds also doesn't speak to meritocracy).

I think you miss understand the point I was making in the immediately preceding post. Accordingly, I think you have mistaken my examples of potential societies which would be meritocratic without being egalitarian with societies I'm trying to play. The point in that post is that meritocracy =/= egalitarianism. They deal with different issues and address different problems.

I also agree that the RP aspects of the game are strong. In fact, It seems that the RP elements and society creation elements of the game are the defining elements of the game. That does not mean that individual player suggestions are and opinions are based on the assumption that Stellaris is an RP game. The earlier posters appeared to be mechanics players who want to be able to make/abuse major game decisions. Having those be related to a RP concept is fine, but ultimately, they find that the gameplay decisions are more important than the RP design type decisions. That is a valid value, but its different than my values which prefers more choices and more precise choices to the specific gameplay impact or balance of any single decision. That is also a valid value.

However, if you are a mechanics person, then the best way to make the game better for you is for the choices you have to have stronger affects. If you come from my point of view then the best improvements add more options and make more precise delineations within society. We will never agree on the outcome, because we do not agree on the basic values. The values aren't based on logic so there isn't any basis to expect the other person to change their mind. Instead of argueing for the sake of argueing, isn't it better to try to understand what the other person wants to accomplish with their suggestions?

The point of a meritocracy is that your ability to perform your job is the sole basis of you having said job. The point of imperial authority is that you are the ruler because your daddy was the ruler. They are mutually exclusive.

You can call your imperial empire meritocratic all you like, you can make it a scientific technocracy and rule based on facts and logic, but it's ultimately a system of assigning jobs based on nepotism and class, not merit. It's who you know, not what you know. Ya know?

That being said, the game actually does allow you to have the authoritarian ethos AND the meritocracy civic, oligarchy authority permits both. But that is a empire who's ruler is chosen (and re-chosen) every 20 years based on merit and merit alone. NOT dynasty, merit.

 

[Honon]

The point of a meritocracy is that your ability to perform your job is the sole basis of you having said job. The point of imperial authority is that you are the ruler because your daddy was the ruler. They are mutually exclusive.

You can call your imperial empire meritocratic all you like, you can make it a scientific technocracy and rule based on facts and logic, but it's ultimately a system of assigning jobs based on nepotism and class, not merit. It's who you know, not what you know. Ya know?

That being said, the game actually does allow you to have the authoritarian ethos AND the meritocracy civic, oligarchy authority permits both. But that is a empire who's ruler is chosen (and re-chosen) every 20 years based on merit and merit alone. NOT dynasty, merit.

The decision on how to make a ruler is not the same as the decision on how to promote leadership. Nepotism, corruption, and dynasties are common in some Democracies just as some empires have had a strong bureaucratic tradition fueled my meritocratic principles. Also, now in the extreme, some imperial dynasties did not have successors chosen merely by succession but where heirs were chosen by other means. Oligarchies tended to be no more meritocratic then imperial nations (see, triumverate, rome). Accordingly, a meritocratic society does not have to be a an equal society. At further extremes, even a class based society can be meritocratic where within a class, actual positions of influence are assigned by merit or professionals. If you extend this concept to science fiction empires, you have even more examples to choose from as dynastic empires with meritocratic gateways toward success/leadership are a pretty common trope.

 

[Mastikator]

The decision on how to make a ruler is not the same as the decision on how to promote leadership. Nepotism, corruption, and dynasties are common in some Democracies just as some empires have had a strong bureaucratic tradition fueled my meritocratic principles. Also, now in the extreme, some imperial dynasties did not have successors chosen merely by succession but where heirs were chosen by other means. Oligarchies tended to be no more meritocratic then imperial nations (see, triumverate, rome). Accordingly, a meritocratic society does not have to be a an equal society. At further extremes, even a class based society can be meritocratic where within a class, actual positions of influence are assigned by merit or professionals. If you extend this concept to science fiction empires, you have even more examples to choose from as dynastic empires with meritocratic gateways toward success/leadership are a pretty common trope.

Even a class based society can be meritocratic where within a class, actual positions of influence are assigned by merit or professionals.

Exactly, thank you. Without social mobility based on merit, across the classes, it is not a meritocratic society because class is first and merits are second. In a truly meritocratic society it only matters that you are the best for the job. Your name, title, social status etc have no bearing.

I don't think there's ever been a truly meritocratic society in history, even the countries that boast meritocracy today still practice anti-meritocratic traditions like inheritance.

 

[Honon]

Even a class based society can be meritocratic where within a class, actual positions of influence are assigned by merit or professionals.

Exactly, thank you. Without social mobility based on merit, across the classes, it is not a meritocratic society because class is first and merits are second. In a truly meritocratic society it only matters that you are the best for the job. Your name, title, social status etc have no bearing.

I don't think there's ever been a truly meritocratic society in history, even the countries that boast meritocracy today still practice anti-meritocratic traditions like inheritance.

You invoking your own philosophical intransigence more than any reality. Certainly, there has been no perfectly meritocratic country or even organization in history. There has also been no perfectly imperial system, monarchic system, feudal system, capitalist system, democratic system, communist system. Your fallacy is in switching to the "if it isn't completely meritocratic, than its not meritocratic at all. By the same token, you can argue that there are no governmental or economic systems at all because no actual system is completely perfect concept. The world does not deal in perfection and only deals in one absolute after all.

The class example was simply the most extreme example of a country having a large meritocratic leaning even within a class system. However, the reverse can also happen: a class system where merit trumps class and a member of a lower class can be selected over a nobleman for a position in the bureaucracy due to merit.

However, lets take your "truly meritocratic" society and see how that would be the antithesis of egalitarianism.

In a position where the ONLY thing that matters is that you are the best for the job. A supreme power/machine/genetic test would determine how well you would do in all jobs. It then selects, for any opening, only that individual determined to be best at performing that position. If the person does not want to do that position, the higher power forces the person comply. After all, your desires are not considered only merit. Any person whose qualities are not the best for any available position would be terminated or forced into a perpetual underclass. After all, if you have no merit, you have no place in a merit based society. Life does not matter, only that you are most capable for an available position. That is your "true meritocracy", hardly egalitarian. Of course, because you equate a selective policy with a governmental one, the supreme power would be determined by the same process.

You are right, there are no "truly" meritocratic societies, but their are some societies that had strong meritocratic tendencies. And some of those were imperial.

 

[Mastikator]

You invoking your own philosophical intransigence more than any reality. Certainly, there has been no perfectly meritocratic country or even organization in history. There has also been no perfectly imperial system, monarchic system, feudal system, capitalist system, democratic system, communist system. Your fallacy is in switching to the "if it isn't completely meritocratic, than its not meritocratic at all. By the same token, you can argue that there are no governmental or economic systems at all because no actual system is completely perfect concept. The world does not deal in perfection and only deals in one absolute after all.

The class example was simply the most extreme example of a country having a large meritocratic leaning even within a class system. However, the reverse can also happen: a class system where merit trumps class and a member of a lower class can be selected over a nobleman for a position in the bureaucracy due to merit.

However, lets take your "truly meritocratic" society and see how that would be the antithesis of egalitarianism.

In a position where the ONLY thing that matters is that you are the best for the job. A supreme power/machine/genetic test would determine how well you would do in all jobs. It then selects, for any opening, only that individual determined to be best at performing that position. If the person does not want to do that position, the higher power forces the person comply. After all, your desires are not considered only merit. Any person whose qualities are not the best for any available position would be terminated or forced into a perpetual underclass. After all, if you have no merit, you have no place in a merit based society. Life does not matter, only that you are most capable for an available position. That is your "true meritocracy", hardly egalitarian. Of course, because you equate a selective policy with a governmental one, the supreme power would be determined by the same process.

You are right, there are no "truly" meritocratic societies, but their are some societies that had strong meritocratic tendencies. And some of those were imperial.

The game features tons of game play styles that aren't real. Like Shared Burdens, or Beacon of Liberty, or any gestalt, or robots as people. Just because something isn't real doesn't mean it doesn't belong in Stellaris, but just because it's in Stellaris doesn't mean there are any real world parallels. There's no need to get angry, I'm just basing the Meritocracy civic on the games own text:

An individual's social station or personal connections should have no bearing on their profession. The sole basis for advancement in this society is demonstrated ability and talent.

Only demonstrated talent and ability are used for advancement. Not class, not connections, not luck, not anything but talent.

There is no society that meets this criteria, not now not ever in history. There has never been a society where the sole basis for advancement is ability and talent. It has always been first and foremost who you know, what your title is, who your family is, how much money you have. Talent is often not even a concern.

For the record please skip this "you're making a fallacy" nonsense, I'm not making an argument. I'm stating a fact. Either it's true or not, but there's no argument that can be fallacious or valid. So just stop it

 

[Archael90]

Egalitarianism/authoritarism ethic is about pop equality, while fanatic egalitarians believe that everybody (science director and street cleaner) are equal in everything inclueding payment (i always wandered why egalitarians have bonus in production of specialists while they are most underrated strata in egalitarian society, especially fanatic ones like communism... they should have demotion time decreased by 50%/100%), fanatic autoritharians believe that noone is equal, even two science directors.
This have nothing to meritocracy at all.
Meritocracy is one of ideas of perfect democracy or capitalism, where everyone have job and position they earn and are capable of. This have nothing to ethos, but have everything with society type. Meritocracy is perfect idea of democracy or capitalism, but have nothing to do with communism, or any autocratic government. This is why meritocracy cannot be acomplished in monarchy (but theoreticaly could be achived in stellaris dictatorial government).
But, as i said earlier, you can choose both meritocracy civic with one of ruler jobs upgrades, like exalted priesthood, technocracy, or aristocratic elite, and still be meritocrat without autocratic civic. Hek You can choose non fanatic autoritarian ethic.

 

[Dragatus]

But I think the Meritocracy civic highlights the problem with equating a "meritocracy" with an "egalitarian" society.

Meritocracy in Stellaris is not associated with an egalitarian society, but with one that is pluralistic (as opposed to autocratic). It requires a specific government type rather than a specific ethic and you can have a meritocratic authoritarian oligarchy if you want.

I don't see how an imperial government could possibly be a meritocracy when meritocracy is all about earning your position through merit. A society where the ruling position is hereditary but lesser positions are filled by skilled individuals could be approximated with the Philosopher King civic instead.

You can make a better case for meritocracy for dictatorships, but IRL dictators tend to not like competition and will typically favor loyalty over competence in their subordinates.