That's kind of what I'm saying the fanatic one is the important one and the rest is just the opinions.
They could balance it by making the fanatic more powerful and the regular less powerful.
- 5
5 points ethos system
- Thread starter Loki98
- Start date
-
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.
That's kind of what I'm saying the fanatic one is the important one and the rest is just the opinions.
They could balance it by making the fanatic more powerful and the regular less powerful.
Actually I guess that's true. Good point. But I would still like to try my system when the game comes out. Yay for mods!!!
The militarism slider means that your population are far more accepting of wars and that warfare plays a large part of your political climate. A population that has just a single point in militarism would be accepting of the military making every decision on their behalf in some way or another.
To give an example, the Krogan of Mass Effect would be fanatically militarist, the Turians Militarist, both of these are demonstrated by both being ruled by military governments. The Klingons from Star Trek too. Meanwhile, the Systems Alliance of Mass Effect is arguable neutral on the matter - while we are constantly seeing military personnel, this is caused by the fact that offworld colonies make up a very small of the human population (numbering in the tens of millions seemingly) and that the extra planetary organization is mostly military following the first contact war - at home it's a representative democracy and the military has no special role, and most humans never enlist.
Edit: in example, the Turians were confused why humans thought extensive orbital bombardment was wrong, since every person of a certain age has to enlist in the military, they have little concept of "civillians".
Humanity from Starship Troopers would be another example of a militarist human government (military republic).
On the more pacifist scale, you could have Humans from Star Trek: TNG, which are extremely wary of entering actual war, but keep a substantial fleet in case it becomes necessary.
Well then I would consider them normal pacifists. Pacifists being someone who don't want war, but that doesn't mean they won't have a fleet to defend themselves with. Like the old quote goes "let him who wants peace prepare for war"
- 2
Neutral/moderate stances should be commonplace. Given the current ethos wheel setup but with 5 points, most players would choose an ethos for every category due to human nature and disregard neutral/moderate.
So unless you also provide noticeable incentives for choosing no stance or add tradeoff malus for picking an ethos... no.
So unless you also provide noticeable incentives for choosing no stance or add tradeoff malus for picking an ethos... no.
- 5
Going to have to disagree with you there, there's easily a 'slider of willingness of militarist aggression' in sci-fi media, that would also encompass a relative neutral stance where war isn't a defining trait, but neither would it cause massive civil unrest:
<-- Fanatically pacifist (Some Vulcans, Some minor races from ST:TNG) l Pacifist (The Federation from ST:TNG, Asari) l Neutral (Systems Alliance, Salarians) l Militarist (Turians, Humans from Starship Troopers) l Fanatically Militarist (Krogan, Klingons) -->
- 4
The neutral choice is still a choice, especially if the other four options on that axis have maluses.
I'd rate Australia as neutral on Warlike/Pacifist, and in fact probably *most* countries fall into that. Very few countries could be considered to really be Pacifist IMHO. Even Switzerland and New Zealand participate in UN peacekeeping missions.
Militarist? Israel, probably the USA, Russia. Fanatic Militarist? North Korea.
Pacifist? Costa Rica, Vatican City. Can't think of any that would qualify for Fanatic Pacifist, unless you count the Dalai Lama's Tibetan government in exile. Though Tibet DID have an army before occupation.
ALL of the movements away from Neutral represent strong biases, and are optional.
I like the design of the current system.
I'd rate Australia as neutral on Warlike/Pacifist, and in fact probably *most* countries fall into that. Very few countries could be considered to really be Pacifist IMHO. Even Switzerland and New Zealand participate in UN peacekeeping missions.
Militarist? Israel, probably the USA, Russia. Fanatic Militarist? North Korea.
Pacifist? Costa Rica, Vatican City. Can't think of any that would qualify for Fanatic Pacifist, unless you count the Dalai Lama's Tibetan government in exile. Though Tibet DID have an army before occupation.
ALL of the movements away from Neutral represent strong biases, and are optional.
I like the design of the current system.
- 5
- 1
Yeah. I'm curious though, do you have the same opinion of every ethos?
"You can't be neither completely dedicated towards a single cause/organization (collectivism) - or - heavily invested in individual agency, even to the detriment of society (individualism)"
"You can't be neither very spiritual and seeking profound, metaphysical understanding (spiritual) - or - heavily invested in the progress of science and rejection of the former (materialism)
"You can't be neither very welcoming of strangers, preferring them even over your own race (xenophile) - or - finding them to be a lower form of life, less deserving of rights than your own (xenophobe).
Do you overall reject the existence of ambivalence or apathy towards a political stance? It seems to me like most people have strong opinions about some things, but rarely many, though people who have strong opinions about almost everything do exist.
- 3
Personally I don't see why some species can't be xenophobic/militaristic/materialistic/individualistic simultaneously, for example. So it must be a game balance issue, but I don't think it's that much unsolvable problem for PD.
Can't agree with that notion. By that logic only one point would be even more meaningful.
- 5
Nothing in excess. Why 5 points and not 8? You wouldn't have to use them all if you did not want to.
- 1
- 1
There are of course a lot of people who are neutral in a lot of opinions (especially today when no one seems to care about politics) but nations always have an opinion in every question/ethos.
- 5
Indeed, and as brought up sometimes that's militarist (Fanatically so - North Korea, Moderately so (Israel, USA), Either way (Australia, most of Europe), Kind of against it with major diplomatic fallout for even considering entering it (Vatican, Japan?, most small states), Utterly opposed to it under any circumstances (?))
An indirect democracy that would be neutral on the militarist scale but sometimes went on offensive wars could be explained away by a new dominant party being more militarist than average. Meanwhile, a military republic would often do it because the population would be inclined towards military conflict as a driving force of their society.
- 1
First of all. Pecekeeping missions are pro pacifism even if they are done through the military. There is a difference between normal pacifism and hating all wars/weapons.
- 4
Because if everything is fanatical nothing is. Again, do you think that one ethos would give us more meaningful choice?
- 1