Collectivist vs. Individualist actually Hierarchical vs. Egalitarian

[NakedBeast]

Yes perhaps I did. I belive that both extremes should get bonuses to slavery, both capitalists and commies have went down that path in the past. Of course no one is forcing you to use it.

What capitalists like Confederates did is called "Alien slavery" in Stellaris. Alien slavery is about xenophobic and not individualist/collectivist.

 

[Thure]

Tbh it seems to be really weird. It's like they took two different groups of political ideologies which weren't even actually opposites and said "these are fundamental opposites now". It's like using x + y, y and 2x + z as basis vectors. Yeah you can do it but why would you?

It seems to be kinda like capitalism + some liberal values vs feudalism.

Religious vs Materialist has the same problem: For example if I have a species who's hatred for decay in all it's forms (They value order and energy efficiency and hate entropy - believing it to be the physical manifestation of Death) drives it to research more and more physics in the hope of minimizing the effects of entropy, and launch missions and occasionally even crusades against aliens they deem to be too excessive. Is this species materialist, because it cares about the physical world, or spiritualist because it does so for religious reasons? In game the answer would be extreme both, and this is a strong indication that they aren't opposite.

Both of these seem to me like they took stuff which is very local (it only makes sense when considering stuff specific to recent history).

Edit: recent human history. There's no way this would be general to alien societies. Even rubber forehead aliens - it isn't even general to earth ones.

There is NO religious vs materialist ingame. It's spiritualists vs materialists. Spiritualism =/= religious.

 

[Denkt]

I agree with @NakedBeast, the governments are true to their names.

 

[TheDungen]

What capitalists like Confederates did is called "Alien slavery" in Stellaris. Alien slavery is about xenophobic and not individualist/collectivist.

Yes but it ignores things like indentured servitude that has existed in capitalist systems. And are also often in them in sci-fi. For an example the asari in mass effect.
A highly individualistic species who belive that if a person want to solve their debts by selling themselves into slavery that's their buniess and their buisness alone.

I consider it more fun to imagine Stellaris having governments as broad as possible. Monarchy in Stellaris is not 20th or even 19th century British monarchy. Monarchy there is a true rule of one - like God-kings of antient myths. Monarch can freely do ANYTHING without any restrictions.
And democracy means true democracy, where everyone has power to influence state politics and none have much more power then others.

Most likely we do not have pure monarchy and pure democracy nowadays in most countries. Maybe North Korea could be considered monarchy, althought there is a chance that power there is held by more people then 1 fat young man we know. And about democracies, I'd say USA is a mix of Plutocratic Oligarchy/Theocratic oligarchy with mass media buisiness groups being the elite controlling information (thus theocratic) and lots of money (plutocratic).

Oh so you want them as broad as possible but all monarchies need to be absolute one like in the distant past... that's not broad tat's increadibly narrow.

 

[Aed]

As I believe the digressing discussion of this thread very well demonstrates, the current "collectivist vs. individualist" ethos matrix is locked in the imagination of the 20th Cold War on Earth between pudgy and tasty humans. What do aliens, and the Blorgs, care at all about Cold War ideologies?

In a Sci-Fi space game I want more possibilities opened for imagining extraterrestrial and futuristic utopias and dystopias, not restricted to political correctness.

Under the current model all collectivist democracies are prohibited. All individualist autocracies are prohibited. If I want to enslave my fellow species I must be collectivist. If such a model is not even representative of the diversity of human societies how can it express our imagination for alien societies?

This a thousand times, like I said previously the current model is limited enough when looking at Human politics, let alone when we try and imagine alien political systems.

 

[CptWilly]

I consider it more fun to imagine Stellaris having governments as broad as possible. Monarchy in Stellaris is not 20th or even 19th century British monarchy. Monarchy there is a true rule of one - like God-kings of antient myths. Monarch can freely do ANYTHING without any restrictions.
And democracy means true democracy, where everyone has power to influence state politics and none have much more power then others.

Most likely we do not have pure monarchy and pure democracy nowadays in most countries. Maybe North Korea could be considered monarchy, althought there is a chance that power there is held by more people then 1 fat young man we know. And about democracies, I'd say USA is a mix of Plutocratic Oligarchy/Theocratic oligarchy with mass media buisiness groups being the elite controlling information (thus theocratic) and lots of money (plutocratic).

What you suggest should definitely be within the range of what Stellaris governments can represent, but I do think it would be a shame if they could not also represent muddied and imperfect variations more similar to governments of today.

 

[Demarque]

So here's a proposed solution: Separate collectivist and individualist into it's two component axis:

Hierarchical vs. Egalitarian (government power and ideological axis)
Hierarchical unlocks autocracies, Extremist locks all the democracies.
Egalitarian unlocks democracies, extremist locks all autocracies.
Hierarchical gets bonus spy defense, increased slavery tolerance. Egalitarian gets bonus happiness, reduced slavery tolerance.

Collectivist vs. Individualist (economic and ideological axis)
Collectivist unlocks despotic hegemony (always - cannot be re-locked).
Individualist unlocks plutocratic oligarchy (always - cannot be re-locked).
Individualist gets increased ethics tolerance, bonus energy credits. Collectivist gets reduced ethics shift, bonus minerals.

What do you guys think?
Wrt 5 axes meaning points get spread more thinly, maybe give 4 points and make fanatic cost 3? Or maybe make it limit 1 fanatical?
Btw all the ethics axes are ( ... and ideological )

Best solution so far, although I'm don't think Paradox will change this so close to release (they would have to do a rebalancing).

But the game will be very moddable, so you guys better prepare your coding skills

 

[Aramel]

From the wikipedia article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collectivism) that Zavaleta put in his original post:

Collectivism can be divided into horizontal collectivism and vertical collectivism. Horizontal collectivism stresses collective decision-making among relatively equal individuals, and is thus usually based on decentralization. Vertical collectivism is based on hierarchical structures of power and on moral and cultural conformity, and is therefore based on centralization.

If the "collectivist" ethos in the game is representing vertical collectivism instead of horizontal collectivism, then the slavery bonus makes sense. This is much closer to space feudalism than space communism, but it's still a form of collectivism.

Additional quote from that article, by George Orwell:

It cannot be said too often – at any rate, it is not being said nearly often enough – that collectivism is not inherently democratic, but, on the contrary, gives to a tyrannical minority such powers as the Spanish Inquisitors never dreamt of.

 

[EddieTheLion]

collectivism =/= socialism
individualism =/= capitalism

The ideology best described as collectivist in the Stellaris sense is fascism. Fascism is all about the idea that individuals don't matter, the nation/race/state/whatever does.

Socialism can easily be justified using individualistic ethos- after all someone isn't really free to pursue their desires if they are forced to work long hours for low pay just to obtain basic necessities, and have little time or resources left over for themselves.

 

[BrokenSky]

Yes perhaps I did. I belive that both extremes should get bonuses to slavery, both capitalists and commies have went down that path in the past. Of course no one is forcing you to use it.

Oh yeah no that makes sense. If they keep it as just one axis, both extremes should get slavery tolerance.

What capitalists like Confederates did is called "Alien slavery" in Stellaris. Alien slavery is about xenophobic and not individualist/collectivist.

No alien slavery is what modern day farmers do to cows.

There is NO religious vs materialist ingame. It's spiritualists vs materialists. Spiritualism =/= religious.

But most religious comes under spiritualist. Though to be honest that does actually help me work out how to play that alien species who's religion is minimizing entropy though (a thing I actually intend to do because it sounds like fun). Thanks

Best solution so far, although I'm don't think Paradox will change this so close to release (they would have to do a rebalancing).

But the game will be very moddable, so you guys better prepare your coding skills

Tbh that was the plan anyway. The main problem is ethics based event decision options (which as I understand it will be most event decisions)

 

[Electrius]

Individualist vs Collectivist? More like Individual Goals vs Group Goals.
Xenophile vs Xenophobe? More like Novelty-Seeking vs Novelty-Avoidant.
Spiritualist vs Materialist? More like Meditative vs Industrious.
Pacifist vs Militarist? More like Defensive vs Aggressive.

 

[Latheloi]

Don't know if this has been raised already, but I think the point about the ethos system is that it represents how the pops think of themselves, rather than the governing ethos - thus why the libertarian / egalitarian split would make sense as an outright replacement.

The government ethos is more the government type.

As an aside though, it would be nice if direct democracy was also available at the fanatic collectivist end of the spectrum as it would make sense either as a group-think, or as a duty to the collective mass participation in governance.

 

[BrokenSky]

Don't know if this has been raised already, but I think the point about the ethos system is that it represents how the pops think of themselves, rather than the governing ethos - thus why the libertarian / egalitarian split would make sense as an outright replacement.

The government ethos is more the government type.

As an aside though, it would be nice if direct democracy was also available at the fanatic collectivist end of the spectrum as it would make sense either as a group-think, or as a duty to the collective mass participation in governance.

Possibly? the problem with that is it restricts your starting government though. How does that match up?

 

[Latheloi]

Possibly? the problem with that is it restricts your starting government though. How does that match up?

Well, simply that people with that set of ethos wouldn't consider/end up in that sort of government. Pacifist population? Probably not likely to have a military government. Materialistic as all hell - perhaps not a divine empire!

As the aside suggests, I'm not sure that I wouldn't question which ones are available with specific ethos match ups!

As another aside - the people imputing fascism with collectivism. I wouldn't say you were wrong but I would argue that a Fanatic Militarist, (ordinary) collectivism would be a better reflection. The primary driving force of fascism isn't really it's collectivism.

 

[francis_morin]

What capitalists like Confederates did is called "Alien slavery" in Stellaris. Alien slavery is about xenophobic and not individualist/collectivist.

True, partially. The Confederates were effectively enslaving under "Xenophobia" in that example, but there were other forms of slavery that capitalism helped and help promote. I think the main problem with this dichotomy of Collectivism/Individualism is it has too much to bear on its shoulders in the way it is shown throughout writings and in the fact it is the closest things the other debates can relate too. It has to deal with Libertarian/Authoritarian ideals, with Centralized/Decentralized powers of government, with Private/Collective ownerships, and what have you. It is a lot to handle. It is obviously doomed to fail reality in that regard, especially when Collectivism locks away all forms of democracy for what I have seen latetly, which is sad.

There is NO religious vs materialist ingame. It's spiritualists vs materialists. Spiritualism =/= religious.

Yes, there is such a dichotomy in game. In fact, I am quite surprised to the extent of it after they said so vividly there won't be such a separation in the past. Look at Divine Mandate for example, or the Theocratic Republic or Theocratic Oligarchy - "Spiritualist" types of government that any materialist society de facto cannot take according to game mechanics -, stating clearly a religion of state reinforcing the power of the government, or the general debate this Spiritualism/Materialism dichotomy has going on in the sense of the worth of Life itself and the holyness of the living Spirit as oppose to the intelligence of I.A.. Are Life and conciousness holy things worthy of praise ? Spiritualism ? Yes. Materialism ? No. You know who else advocate the worthyness of Life and living conciouness over materiality ? Religions. All of them, to the extent of my knowledge.

So, yeah, I am dissapointed on this. I though they will at least try their best to show the neutrality of Spiritualism, but it looks like they just take the word and take the same path they will have taken by taking Religion as their word otherwise. What I have feared seems to have happened.

Effectively, every religion is spiritual in nature. All of them, even when what they worship comes in blood and flesh and it is targeted to real people. It is still using other principles of logics than those of the materialists. In opposition, they could have played widely differently on the term of Spiritualism, because this concept is not necesseraly religious in nature, but they did not, at least not sufficiently for it to distance itself from the religions. I would have love if at least they had created a niche for non religious Spiritualism playstyle, with maybe even a unique government type or several to show it mechanically rather than relying on "fluff" alone. Because right now, if you want to play with Spiritualism, you are quite heavily put toward religious types of government.

 

[Finnway]

I had planned on doing a constitutional Monarchy with a parliamentarian style of model, but now that doesn't seem to be possible. Not sure which of the governments to go for though. The ethics I have/am going with are collectivism 1, Pacifism 1, and Xenophile 1.

TBH, Enlightened Monarchy (Pacifistic Monarchy) is probably the closest to what you're talking about.

• -25% Edict cost
• +25% Planetary edict duration
• +1 Core sector planets

Although the bonuses might not make the most sense. Typically, countries with parliaments/senates tend to have a harder time passing laws, not easier

 

[KonradKurze202]

I would have love if at least they had created a niche for non religious Spiritualism playstyle, with maybe even a unique government type or several to show it mechanically rather than relying on "fluff" alone.

What exactly would a non-religious spiritual empire be? In order for Spirituality to show up as an Ethos choice it must be a vital part of the society. Lets say your spirituality is more about connectedness with the universe and nature and each other, rather than following a religious doctrine. Basically you are playing as Space Buddhists, a non-theistic religion, that is more about the connectedness of life than it is about 'On this day 5000 years ago some dude said this, and thus it was so!'.
That is a religion.
If the spirituality of you empire is so weak and diffused as to not be a major part of your empire then your empire is not Spiritual. Just like a nation with a military, but doesn't advocate military solutions first, and prefers diplomacy, isn't Militaristic, it is neutral.

 

[Subbak]

TBH, Enlightened Monarchy (Pacifistic Monarchy) is probably the closest to what you're talking about.

• -25% Edict cost
• +25% Planetary edict duration
• +1 Core sector planets

Although the bonuses might not make the most sense. Typically, countries with parliaments/senates tend to have a harder time passing laws, not easier

Peaceful Bureacuracy (Pacifist Oligarchy, available with the suggested Collectivist 1 Pacifist 1 Xenophile 1) sounds also a bit like what he wants. Somewhat decentralized ruling, not everyone gets a say but valuable individuals can be easily promoted. Yeah the parliament isn't explicitely there, but without a parliament mechanic that's not going to happen.

• +4 Leader capacity
• -15% Leader recruitment cost

This government is a pacifist form of oligarchy, where a complicated system of bureaucracy governs all aspects of society to ensure the safety of the citizenry.

 

[Subbak]

The more I think about it, the more I realize the problem isn't so much in the name of the Ethos, it's in:
* the slavery opinion effect. While Individualists hating slavery kind of makes sense, I think Collectivist should give a different bonus instead, maybe mineral production.
* Autocracies/democracies should have different names reflecting instead strong/loose state control. This could be reflected by different names (don't have good suggestions) and the Collectivist government forms giving large bonuses and small maluses, while the Individualist government forms would give small bonuses and no maluses.

At the very least I would swap Ploutocratic Oligarchy (base Oligarchy, which I would simply rename Ploutocracy) and Indirect Democracy (base Democracy). It does not make sense that Individualist Fanatics can't be Ploutocrats.

 

[KonradKurze202]

The more I think about it, the more I realize the problem isn't so much in the name of the Ethos, it's in:
* the slavery opinion effect. While Individualists hating slavery kind of makes sense, I think Collectivist should give a different bonus instead, maybe mineral production.
* Autocracies/democracies should have different names reflecting instead strong/loose state control. This could be reflected by different names (don't have good suggestions) and the Collectivist government forms giving large bonuses and small maluses, while the Individualist government forms would give small bonuses and no maluses.

At the very least I would swap Ploutocratic Oligarchy (base Oligarchy, which I would simply rename Ploutocracy) and Indirect Democracy (base Democracy). It does not make sense that Individualist Fanatics can't be Ploutocrats.

I agree that non-symmetrical bonuses are best. Materialistic gives research bonuses, no maluses, Spiritualist gives Happiness, no maluses. I haven't heard anyone complain about Materialist and Spiritualist. Just because two things are opposed doesn't mean where one has a + the other has to have a -, and vice-versa.