4th Gov Group: Limited Autocracies

[Nyrael]

As is, in Stellaris we right now have three Gov. groups: the Individualist Democracies, the Collectivist Autocracies and the mix-mash called Oligarchies.
Personally, I dislike this set-up for following reasons:

- you can't be Individualist and a Monarchy. One can make arguments on why, but it still feels off when there are much more fantastical things around. Heck, Enlightened Monarchy sounds and feels In individualist yet you can't be as Individualist with it?
- Oligarchies represent a society shamelessly ruled by an elite. To an Individualist this might be even more annoying than a Monarchy. At least the later is more defined AND can co-exist with regular democratic model
- Wiz said that Individualism and Collectivism represent the following: "Good of the state vs good of the individual, pretty much." I don't see why a Monarchy would be forced to be for the good of state all the time

So I suggest this:
- Autocracies and Democracies remain as they are
- Oligarchies are now locked by Individualism
- another government group is added, representing Limited (Constitutional) Autocracies which guarantee rights and freedom of individuals and are locked by Collectivism

The new Gov. types would be the following:
(No Ethos) Constitutional monarchy - the Government where the King and the Prime Minister rule together. Might work like the Dutch Republic in EU4 where you have elections but can instead choose a Monarch
(No Ethos Upgr.) Parliamentary Monarchy - parliament and referendums further strenghten the democratic aspect and democratic safety of the state. Prime Minister and King may rule together, but their bonuses are halved

(Militarism) Military Protectorate - the military has a lot of power, but is supervised by the populace. Unlike other Militarist governments, they get maluses when leading an aggressive war, but get strong bonuses when fighting a defensive war
(Militarism Upgr.) Marshal Protectorate(?) - the populace and the state have embraced the "Offense is Best Defense" idea. The state can now declare war upon Militarists, Xenophobes and Threats without repercussions

(Spiritualism) Clerical Autocracy- unlike the Divine Mandate, the ruler is not holy nor has the absolute power. Instead, they are the spiritual guide to their people. The heir itself is raised in isolation by the priests and taught nothing but religion, philosophy and spiritual exercises
(Spiritualism Upgr.) Spiritual Monarchy - the entire state is now one with their ruler in spirit

(Materialism) Guided Monarchy(?) - the people are to be respected and protected, and the King is a tool to accomplish that. The heirs to the monarch go through a harsh education that makes them a competent ruler but also kills much of individual wishes and desires in them
(Materialism Upgr.) Rational Autocracy - the advancements in technology make rulers obsolete. The society is now ruled by an advanced AI, whose protocols can be changed by the governing bodies and popular support. In-game, this means that the ruler is eternal but player can spend Influence to change the "ruler" bonuses; not liked by a certain kind of Fallen Empire

Additionally, the Enlightened Monarchy is moved to this group while the Collectivist Autocracy group instead gets a new Government to replace it:
Police State - the primary purpose of this state is to protect the inner peace of the country rather than the external. All threats are eliminated immediately and political power-play is not to get in the way. The bonuses for this Gov. type allow the player easier time squashing factions

 

[Gregsplays]

you've put a lot of work into this and i think it's a good idea, however considering how close release is, and how big a change this would be, it's likely something like this would be added in a patch or DLC at some point, really good idea though!

 

[Yenzen]

- Wiz said that Individualism and Collectivism represent the following: "Good of the state vs good of the individual, pretty much." I don't see why a Monarchy would be forced to be for the good of state all the time

The monarch is the embodiment of the state.

Think about it, we're talking about a civilization where every fragmented nation has found a way to unify. Any such worldwide populace that would accept it likely isn't individualist at least.

As for your suggestion, I feel like it's extra fluff between sharp categories, like "We have 1, 2 and 3. Now let's have 1,5 and 2,5 and later 1,25 and 1,75..." A lot of the stuff is pretty close to oligarchies effectively. Play a Divine Mandate as a personally benevolent ruler and who's to say you're not what you call a Spiritual Monarchy? Play an enlightened monarchy and who's to say there isn't a parliament with the head honcho just keeping things in line?

If anything, I might like some ideas as extra secondary options for advanced governments.

 

[EvilTom]

Can I just ask... what government would an ant hive-like species have? Or the Borg Collective from Star Trek (is this a collective direct democracy... I know it's a collective consciousness?) Maybe these are questions that would be answered later on when more technology is researched as there are more government types than are initially available (including AI overlordship).

What would the United Kingdom be (I think it's a constitutional monarchy mixed with indirect democracy)?

I know we can't have every government type that is described on Wikipedia but we probably need to think of fictional or non-fiction societies and how they can be represented.

 

[Pandoricus]

Umm I think that will be an advanced government type, I don't know all of them but there is a hivemind like one i think

 

[Hertzila]

I feel like there should be an explicit notion that the government formats are more of a practical situation rather than the actual form of government, not to mention a lot of these specific government forms can be imitated pretty well by the policy system.

Example: The current Blorg game. They're roleplaying it as the Blorg giving the one with the most friends the status of head of state. You could easily argue that that's a democratic system, like say the Indirect Democracy, but I think it's valid to think that actually, thanks to the difficulties of getting friends, it is actually a republic nation but the way it plays out practically is more like a Plutocratic Oligarchy (or whatever the Blorg had).

 

[EmperorZelos]

If anything I think it'll be easily implemented through mods.

 

[Arkangilos]

Can I just ask... what government would an ant hive-like species have? Or the Borg Collective from Star Trek (is this a collective direct democracy... I know it's a collective consciousness?) Maybe these are questions that would be answered later on when more technology is researched as there are more government types than are initially available (including AI overlordship).

What would the United Kingdom be (I think it's a constitutional monarchy mixed with indirect democracy)?

I know we can't have every government type that is described on Wikipedia but we probably need to think of fictional or non-fiction societies and how they can be represented.

Borg and insects would be fanatic collectivist under the hegemony one (the materialist one where individuals are just cogs).

Great Brittain would be a representative democracy as the true power lies within the parliament, not with the monarch who is a figurehead.

 

[Nyrael]

The monarch is the embodiment of the state.

Think about it, we're talking about a civilization where every fragmented nation has found a way to unify. Any such worldwide populace that would accept it likely isn't individualist at least.

That's one definition of the Monarchy. Actually no, that's part of the Collectivist idea of the state: "The government is the embodiment of the state".
Individualist idea of the state, be it a republic or a monarchy, is "The government protects the people and their individual rights".

What sets the Collectivist and Individualist monarchy apart is the amount of their authority: Collectivist monarchy, where the King is the embodiment of the state, have absolute authority. An Individualist Monarchy, on other hand, is a state where the monarch is the highest ruling figure BUT their authority is limited by Parliament, Referendums, Constitution, etc. however, they still have more maneuverability, especially in crisis situation, then democratic rulers do.

As for your suggestion, I feel like it's extra fluff between sharp categories, like "We have 1, 2 and 3. Now let's have 1,5 and 2,5 and later 1,25 and 1,75..." A lot of the stuff is pretty close to oligarchies effectively. Play a Divine Mandate as a personally benevolent ruler and who's to say you're not what you call a Spiritual Monarchy? Play an enlightened monarchy and who's to say there isn't a parliament with the head honcho just keeping things in line?

Can't work, won't work.
Divine Mandate represents a ruler that is holy and unquestionable, and the upgrade is even more arrogant than that. Divine Mandate is THE most autocratic gov. type.
Enlightened Monarchy is UNPLAYABLE for Individualist states. Imagining it sounds nice and dandy, but Individualism ethos is more than just a name and some small effects. It defines the events you get, what you can and can't do, etc.

Can I just ask... what government would an ant hive-like species have? Or the Borg Collective from Star Trek (is this a collective direct democracy... I know it's a collective consciousness?) Maybe these are questions that would be answered later on when more technology is researched as there are more government types than are initially available (including AI overlordship).

I think these should get their own DLC, because they need more than just some modifiers to be properly represented.

I feel like there should be an explicit notion that the government formats are more of a practical situation rather than the actual form of government, not to mention a lot of these specific government forms can be imitated pretty well by the policy system.

Example: The current Blorg game. They're roleplaying it as the Blorg giving the one with the most friends the status of head of state. You could easily argue that that's a democratic system, like say the Indirect Democracy, but I think it's valid to think that actually, thanks to the difficulties of getting friends, it is actually a republic nation but the way it plays out practically is more like a Plutocratic Oligarchy (or whatever the Blorg had).

By that logic you only need three gov types: Republic, Oligarchy and Autocracy. We should completely kick out all the other Gov types and have the player RP whatever they want.

But the thing is, the Gov Types are more than just a name and minor modifiers. Events and event choices can be linked to them, and the DLC will likely make them even more distinctive from one another.

 

[Hertzila]

An Individualist Monarchy, on other hand, is a state where the monarch is the highest ruling figure BUT their authority is limited by Parliament, Referendums, Constitution, etc. however, they still have more maneuverability, especially in crisis situation, then democratic rulers do.

So... Not much of a Monarchy at all, in the end?
This is exactly why I think the specific government forms are better roleplayed and the set form is more of a notion of what's practically happening. There are going to be edge cases in every situation and unlike in previous Paradox games they don't have the protection of "That's what historically happened!" that usually stops the "But what about X?" questions. It's better to have a few distinct and different government forms than have a hundred different forms to represent the entire board in every way.

By that logic you only need three gov types: Republic, Oligarchy and Autocracy. We should completely kick out all the other Gov types and have the player RP whatever they want.

But the thing is, the Gov Types are more than just a name and minor modifiers. Events and event choices can be linked to them, and the DLC will likely make them even more distinctive from one another.

Because thinking we don't need more naturally means I think we should simplify it to oblivion and remove the interesting mechanic, right? /s

Maybe the Gov Types are more than just a name and modifiers, but at some point, you have to consider whether adding a "Swedish-style democratic republic monarchy" separated from a "Finnish-style democratic republic" is worth it, especially considering that the difference is pretty much the exact title of the leader and the succession type.

 

[Yenzen]

A sufficiently democratic constitutional monarchy would be an indirect democracy anyway, as the elected leader would have far more influence than the monarch anyway.

 

[Fe1000]

What you suggested are basicaly democracies, with only a bit more of flavour text really.

 

[Nyrael]

So... Not much of a Monarchy at all, in the end?

A ruler who reigns until death rather than someone who stops ruling after X years is a big thing by itself.
I'm not counting the Monarchies where the Prime Minister holds all power (though one suggested Gov. type does represent that possibility) but Monarchies where the ruler reigns until death + he is the top executive minister.
The limitations in question mean that he can't go around and order deaths, random law changes, money for nothing, etc.

This is exactly why I think the specific government forms are better roleplayed...

The entire point here is that you CAN'T roleplay because current set-up does not allow it. Individualism and Collectivism lock Gov. types, remember?
But if you remove the Individualism lock, you contradict half of these Gov. types because they are, per description, Collectivist. Otherwise, I would ask for the lock to be changed not for adding another group.

What you suggested are basicaly democracies, with only a bit more of flavour text really.

All suggested Gov. types have:
1. Ruler ruling until death
2. Non-elected ruler

And that makes it non-democratic (unless you ask the Communists of course).

 

[Thure]

Most modern monarchies would be republics/democracies ingame... because the monarch has no power. And if the monarch has no power he shouldn't be the ruler ingame.

 

[Nyrael]

Most modern monarchies would be republics/democracies ingame... because the monarch has no power. And if the monarch has no power he shouldn't be the ruler ingame.

I'm not talking about those cases here. Heck, I replied to one of posts here that, as far as I'm concerned, UK is an Indirect Democracy.

I'm talking about the following country types:
1. Ruler is not elected and reigns until death - meaning it's monarchy
2. The Monarch is de-facto ruler - Cases where the Prime Minister (Democracy) or a ministry (Oligarchy) are in charge are NOT part of it
3. The Parliament and such do not govern - they are at best the counter-balance that force the Monarch to follow the Constitution, in other words stop him from transforming the country into its Collectivist type
4. The Monarch rules over an Individualist country - meaning that he guarantees freedom of speech, value of life and isn't allowed to conduct "tyrannical acts"

Points 1 to 3 mean that it can't be represented via a Democratic government because no democratic body is in executive leadership. At best, they are supervisors with enough power to keep the Monarch in line and represent populace's interests, but don't have enough power ti actually take over the rulership (getting the entire planet's populace on your side isn't as easy as getting a country's, not to mention that the Monarch may be the only thing keeping all these nations united so an overthrow would be too risky).

Point 4, the prime point, means that you can't represent it via any of the current governments because they are locked by the Individualism ethos. Seeing as 4 of 5 current monarchies ARE despotic I won't complain about the lock, but the idea that a Monarchy CAN'T be Individualistic while a militaristic or theocratic regime can be fully democratic is ridiculous.

 

[Hertzila]

A ruler who reigns until death rather than someone who stops ruling after X years is a big thing by itself.
I'm not counting the Monarchies where the Prime Minister holds all power (though one suggested Gov. type does represent that possibility) but Monarchies where the ruler reigns until death + he is the top executive minister.
The limitations in question mean that he can't go around and order deaths, random law changes, money for nothing, etc.



The entire point here is that you CAN'T roleplay because current set-up does not allow it. Individualism and Collectivism lock Gov. types, remember?
But if you remove the Individualism lock, you contradict half of these Gov. types because they are, per description, Collectivist. Otherwise, I would ask for the lock to be changed not for adding another group.



All suggested Gov. types have:
1. Ruler ruling until death
2. Non-elected ruler

And that makes it non-democratic (unless you ask the Communists of course).

Admittedly the ethos lock is a bit of a pain in this regard, but I think the value gained in allowing better distinction is higher than the cost of not allowing every combination.
It might be worth considering that the Individualism ethos might actually mean an ethical standard in which the state cannot be a monarcy, even a very Swedish monarchy. It doesn't mean what you think it means and that's why it's actually logical that constitutional monarchism is not represented as such here.

Consitutional monarchy is such an edge too. It's a monarchy with a hereditary title as the head of state, yet generally a strong democratic system with its own "leader" of sorts underlying that. It might honestly just be better to forget about them and think of your concept as "Alright, who has more power here, the Prime Minister or the Monarch?" and pick the type according to that answer.
You could RP the constitutional limits as never changing the policies you consider to be in the constitution. If you think your nation's constitution has a clause that allows POPs to freely migrate, never toggle that off.

In concusion, This is a very muddy edge case.

Edit:

4. The Monarch rules over an Individualist country - meaning that he guarantees freedom of speech, value of life and isn't allowed to conduct "tyrannical acts"

Point 4, the prime point, means that you can't represent it via any of the current governments because they are locked by the Individualism ethos. I won't complain much about the lock because it makes sense seeing as 4 of 5 Monarchies there represent despotic monarchies (while for Enlightened monarchy it doesn't make sense).

Do note that just because you don't have Individualism as an ethos does not mean you can't still protect the rights of your citizens. Just never mess around with policies you think would "violate the constitution" and cause your monarch an acute case of "hole through the head".

 

[Nyrael]

It might be worth considering that the Individualism ethos might actually mean an ethical standard in which the state cannot be a monarcy, even a very Swedish monarchy. It doesn't mean what you think it means and that's why it's actually logical that constitutional monarchism is not represented as such here.

Wiz already explained what it means:

Good of the state vs good of the individual, pretty much. Anything more detailed would depend on other ethos and your own roleplaying.

In other words:
Collectivism - populace exists for the good of state
Individualism - state exists for the good of populace

By some Individualism/collectivism definitions, locks would make sense. But not by these concrete definitions where they basically represent only the country's stance towards its population.
The lock DOES make sense for current Monarchies, minus the Enlightened one, because they are all defined as outright despotic regimes. But A Monarchy CAN be Individualist, and you might be more likely to see that than a military or theocratic republic (which you can be in the game).
Since removing the lock would have its own contradictions and re-making the current Monarchies is undesirable (I do think they are fine for themselves), I thought it would be better to just add new ones (and move the Enlightened one there).

 

[deezee]

- Oligarchies represent a society shamelessly ruled by an elite. To an Individualist this might be even more annoying than a Monarchy. At least the later is more defined AND can co-exist with regular democratic model

If you read the in-game description of Individualism (which I'd trust more than off-hand remarks from Wiz), it says that it is about "empowering the individual to reach their maximum potential". It's not hard to see how individualists might like an oligarchy which is meritocratic; by allowing the individuals with the most potential to run society, it both helps them put their talent to greatest use while helping others.

And in fact, most of the oligarchy types can be viewed as meritocratic from the lens of a certain society. Militarists would think of a military junta as a form of meritocracy, materialists would have a similar opinion of the science directorate and capitalistic societies (which isn't an ethos) would probably respect the plutocratic oligarchy.

 

[Nyrael]

If you read the in-game description of Individualism (which I'd trust more than off-hand remarks from Wiz), it says that it is about "empowering the individual to reach their maximum potential". It's not hard to see how individualists might like an oligarchy which is meritocratic; by allowing the individuals with the most potential to run society, it both helps them put their talent to greatest use while helping others.

And in fact, most of the oligarchy types can be viewed as meritocratic from the lens of a certain society. Militarists would think of a military junta as a form of meritocracy, materialists would have a similar opinion of the science directorate and capitalistic societies (which isn't an ethos) would probably respect the plutocratic oligarchy.

Yep, you are right with that, which is why before Wiz's comment I wished that the locks were removed altogether.
Generally, I have a feeling that PDS seems to not have a strong opinion on what these two ethoses represent.

 

[Cynwulf]

A monarchy is not necessarily a hereditary one. Many monarchies were Elected Monarchies.

The Kings of Macedon
The Kings of Epirus
The Ancient Kingdom of Rome
The Holy Roman Empire
Kings of Sweden up until 1544
etc etc etc etc.

It is my understanding that most Monarchies were elective historically? Eventually most elected Monarchies introduced hereditary succession.

I think it would be interesting if the differentiated between the two. Individualist Elected Monarchies or Monarchies where the Monarchy is but a figure head and collectivist where the Monarchies are hereditary and the free citizens have no input on the matter.

Perhaps in a future expansion.