Strategy games routinely involve aggressive war; in space strategy games, even things like orbital bombardment are pretty common. These actions of 'dubious morality' are natural in these games because they typically focus primarily on conquest and how to achieve it most efficiently. Paradox games, however, typically give more detail and granularity to the worlds that they portray, including individual characters or population units, their personalities, and sometimes their relationships. This creates a wonderful and unique experience in Paradox gaming that entails a much greater focus on political stability, rather than being mostly about shallow conquest.
Of course, the tools of political stability are different to the tools of conquest, and often more 'morally dubious', to some extent because they focus on actions against individuals or small groups. CK2, for some cultures, allowed for things like blinding, castration and concubinage, with arguably very minor gameplay consequences. Other actions, like summarily executing people or removing their titles, were also allowed but with more significant consequences.
In Stellaris, the scale is much greater, and so are the stakes. Stellaris portrays a future scenario of interacting alien species, which includes interactions between species of equivalent intelligence and technology (e.g., two species who just discovered FTL), as well as interactions between species that are vastly mismatched (e.g. an FTL-capable species and an atomic age, through to bronze age, or even pre-sapient species). Some of the most relevant, although obviously not equivalent, comparisons we have in our own history to this kind of event are the 'discovery' of the native Americans, and the African slave trade, entailing actions which, at least through modern eyes, were morally dubious to say the very, very least, and had consequences that we still feel today.
In a futuristic scenario, it is not implausible that these kinds of situations may also arise; there may very well be little empathy between a mammalian and a molluscoid species, for example, and one could imagine extreme violence, forced resettlement, or enslavement, all of which are game mechanics in Stellaris already. This alone might suggest something about, at least from a role-playing perspective, how a species would approach and interact with the galaxy, to prevent this kind of fate from befalling them. In a sense there is always a risk that a more advanced (or simply more powerful and perhaps immoral) species will encounter you, and turn your civilization, with its thousands of years of history, into subordinates, or dust. One might expect that this extreme potential for catastrophe would shape how a space-faring species positions itself in the galaxy, for example, how it feels about pre-emptive actions and securing its dominance, and survival.
Furthermore, in a science-fiction setting, there is potential for even greater acts of 'dubious morality'. To some extent, Stellaris will allow you to genetically engineer another species, purely for your own benefit - or even amusement. In our own history, we have selectively bred and domesticated animals to suit our purposes, or our dinner tables, and the same could happen in a science-fiction setting, but this time perhaps with species of equivalent intelligence, or at least the potential for it; it could even happen to your species. Perhaps the intelligence could be bred out of a species. One could argue that these kinds of actions are perhaps the greatest possible crimes that the future might entail.
One data point we currently have regarding the game, for example, is that 30% of starting ethos combinations have at least one point in Collectivism or Xenophobia, choices that provide bonuses towards slavery. Ignoring traits and government types that do similar things, a reasonable estimate might be that 30% of equivalent-tech species in the galaxy would be slaveholders.
How do you think the potential for these kinds of extreme actions will shape the gameplay of Stellaris, if at all? Will they only be 'extreme' if the player chooses to view them as such, and in terms of gameplay mechanics, have little consequence? Will these actions become in a sense 'trivial', or in some cases even necessary for stability of a star-spanning empire? Over time, would the prevailing opinion in the galaxy about these actions change, with more 'modern eyes' looking back on past actions and judging them differently, or would that be restricted to role-play? Could the modern perspective in fact be for better or for worse, and would that depend on which ethos establishes its dominance? Could there be any sense of - for lack of a better phrase - a 'galactic community', which takes a very dim view of these actions and would intervene to prevent them? For example, would the estimated 70% of equivalent-tech civilizations that are not slaveholders, some of which are fanatically opposed to slavery, be inclined to intervene? Or would such a thing be restricted to role-playing, and otherwise not a part of the gameplay, with civilizations turning a blind eye to these actions, or just routinely participating in them themselves?
Of course, the tools of political stability are different to the tools of conquest, and often more 'morally dubious', to some extent because they focus on actions against individuals or small groups. CK2, for some cultures, allowed for things like blinding, castration and concubinage, with arguably very minor gameplay consequences. Other actions, like summarily executing people or removing their titles, were also allowed but with more significant consequences.
In Stellaris, the scale is much greater, and so are the stakes. Stellaris portrays a future scenario of interacting alien species, which includes interactions between species of equivalent intelligence and technology (e.g., two species who just discovered FTL), as well as interactions between species that are vastly mismatched (e.g. an FTL-capable species and an atomic age, through to bronze age, or even pre-sapient species). Some of the most relevant, although obviously not equivalent, comparisons we have in our own history to this kind of event are the 'discovery' of the native Americans, and the African slave trade, entailing actions which, at least through modern eyes, were morally dubious to say the very, very least, and had consequences that we still feel today.
In a futuristic scenario, it is not implausible that these kinds of situations may also arise; there may very well be little empathy between a mammalian and a molluscoid species, for example, and one could imagine extreme violence, forced resettlement, or enslavement, all of which are game mechanics in Stellaris already. This alone might suggest something about, at least from a role-playing perspective, how a species would approach and interact with the galaxy, to prevent this kind of fate from befalling them. In a sense there is always a risk that a more advanced (or simply more powerful and perhaps immoral) species will encounter you, and turn your civilization, with its thousands of years of history, into subordinates, or dust. One might expect that this extreme potential for catastrophe would shape how a space-faring species positions itself in the galaxy, for example, how it feels about pre-emptive actions and securing its dominance, and survival.
Furthermore, in a science-fiction setting, there is potential for even greater acts of 'dubious morality'. To some extent, Stellaris will allow you to genetically engineer another species, purely for your own benefit - or even amusement. In our own history, we have selectively bred and domesticated animals to suit our purposes, or our dinner tables, and the same could happen in a science-fiction setting, but this time perhaps with species of equivalent intelligence, or at least the potential for it; it could even happen to your species. Perhaps the intelligence could be bred out of a species. One could argue that these kinds of actions are perhaps the greatest possible crimes that the future might entail.
One data point we currently have regarding the game, for example, is that 30% of starting ethos combinations have at least one point in Collectivism or Xenophobia, choices that provide bonuses towards slavery. Ignoring traits and government types that do similar things, a reasonable estimate might be that 30% of equivalent-tech species in the galaxy would be slaveholders.
How do you think the potential for these kinds of extreme actions will shape the gameplay of Stellaris, if at all? Will they only be 'extreme' if the player chooses to view them as such, and in terms of gameplay mechanics, have little consequence? Will these actions become in a sense 'trivial', or in some cases even necessary for stability of a star-spanning empire? Over time, would the prevailing opinion in the galaxy about these actions change, with more 'modern eyes' looking back on past actions and judging them differently, or would that be restricted to role-play? Could the modern perspective in fact be for better or for worse, and would that depend on which ethos establishes its dominance? Could there be any sense of - for lack of a better phrase - a 'galactic community', which takes a very dim view of these actions and would intervene to prevent them? For example, would the estimated 70% of equivalent-tech civilizations that are not slaveholders, some of which are fanatically opposed to slavery, be inclined to intervene? Or would such a thing be restricted to role-playing, and otherwise not a part of the gameplay, with civilizations turning a blind eye to these actions, or just routinely participating in them themselves?
- 7
- 1
