Comprehensive ethics review for 3.5 (or a later patch)?

[Tannhäuser Cake]

NOTA BENE: a new, updated and expanded draft has been posted.
It features many and major changes from the first draft that was posted below.

Click here to go directly to draft 4.0
Click here to go directly to draft 3.0
Click here to go directly to draft 2.2
Click here to go directly to draft 2.1

Spoiler: Draft 1.1

SUMMARY

The 3.3 Unity rework is a big step forward, but there is now a bigger need to review the bonuses from ethics and governments. The main issues are that Authoritarian has gone from top- to bottom-tier in regards to edicts, that several ethics offer direct or near-direct Unity benefits, that the ethic with the Monthly Unity bonus is not the strongest alternative for Unity, and that the roles and uses of both Influence and Unity have changed significantly since they were originally assigned bonuses from the Authoritarian and Spiritualist ethics. This is the most appropriate time in years to consider the bigger picture of the ethics system, with a focus on design consistency, ethics distinctiveness, game balance and gameplay enjoyment. Through discussion we can more surely identify how ethics may be improved, and as a starting point I have listed a number of ideas further down in this post. If you are impatient, feel free to skip forward to the TLDR summary.


ISSUES IN NEED OF SPECIAL CONSIDERATION

The 3.3 Unity rework goes a long way towards making Unity a more important resource. While the changes create a number of balance and design issues that need to be addressed in further patches, it is a big step forward towards a potential state where the Stellaris gameplay experience may be far richer and more diverse than it ever has been. Ethics design, balancing and distinction has been a subject of debate since the release of the game, but as of the 3.3 Unity rework the ethics system needs attention more than it has in a very long time.

At the heart of the matter are three core issues:

1. The Authoritarian ethic has become a bottom-tier ethic for edicts. The contrast is dramatic, as it used to be a top-tier ethic for edicts, if not the very best. Not only did the ethic offer a bonus to the currency used to pay for edicts, which used to be Influence, but it also favoured a government type (Imperial) that offered a bonus to Edict Capacity.
2. Several ethics offer direct or near-direct Unity benefits. This removes a lot of distinction between the ethics in terms of gameplay experience, and reduces the value of picking the ethic with the direct Monthly Unity bonus as its core feature. Besides the Monthly Unity bonus (Spiritualist), there is the Faction Unity bonus (Egalitarian), the Fear Campaign edict’s Monthly Unity bonus (Xenophobe), and the reduction to Empire Size from pops (Pacifist) which is practically the same as a big bonus to Unity (and a lesser bonus to Research). This all adds up to Spiritualist’s Monthly Unity bonus not being a distinct feature, not being a significant advantage, and in several cases not even being a better option than the alternatives.
   (Although the Veneration of Saints edict can be argued to be a de facto Unity bonus for Spiritualist, its bonus to Priest output is comparatively insignificant as most Unity comes from other sources.)
3. The roles of Unity and Influence have changed. These resources no longer represent the same concepts and abilities they used to, and these new roles need to be taken into consideration by the design of the ethics system.

In addition to these, there are also some other long-standing balance and consistency issues with ethics. (While it can be argued that Faction Unity is among these, as it is strongly tied to the ethics system, there already is a separate thread for the Faction Unity issues. For the purposes of this thread, the Faction Unity issues are ignored.)

Essentially, the bonuses of several ethics need to be re-evaluated. As all ethics are part of a greater whole, now may also be the most appropriate time in years to consider the big picture of the ethics system, how the different ethics compare to each other, and how their respective designs contribute to gameplay value. Or, put differently: design consistency, ethics distinctiveness, game balance and gameplay enjoyment. My hope is that, through discussion, we can more surely identify what roles and what bonuses different ethics should have. As a starting point, I have listed a number of ideas below. Some of these may seem familiar from previous threads; they are now all brought together here, in a single thread, along with some new observations and ideas. If you are impatient, feel free to skip forward to the TLDR summary.


A COLLECTION OF IDEAS

Influence no longer represents internal domination. As of 3.3, Influence is solely about external affairs. Authoritarian is no longer a strong fit for the Influence bonus. Xenophile is the new natural ethic for an Influence bonus, as Influence will mainly be used for diplomatic actions, diplomatic treaties, making others recognise your claims, and pushing Galactic Community resolutions. The Influence bonus offers great synergy with the Envoy bonus, and together they can solidify Xenophile as the main ethic for diplomatic power and diplomatic gameplay.

Stability is not an illogical bonus for Pacifist, but Authoritarian is a stronger fit. Maintaining order and stability is THE primary goal of any Authoritarian government. Stability and order is THE one promise to the people that most (if not all) Authoritarian regimes have in common and base their legitimacy upon. ”Say what you like about the dictatorship, at least it makes the space trains run on time.” It can also be noted that the ethic-specific edict, Information Quarantine, specifically boosts Stability.
(It should further be noted that Stability does not protect planets from Crime as it is caused by unhappiness, and Stratified Economy has more unhappy pops than any other living standard. Authoritarian empires could expect significantly higher Crime levels for any given Stability value, when compared to less unequal empires with more Happiness-based Stability.)

Trade Value is not an illogical bonus for Xenophile, but if Xenophile is to receive the Influence bonus it will need to drop either the Envoy bonus or the Trade Value bonus. As noted above, the Envoy bonus offers synergy with the Influence bonus. Meanwhile, Pacifist has always been a strong(er) fit for the Trade Value bonus, when considering that the Prosperity faction is even more concerned with material prosperity than it is with peace. Passing the Trade Value bonus to Pacifist would also contribute to it being the main ethic for economic power and economic gameplay.

Empire Size from pops reduction should be removed not just from Pacifist but from ethics altogether since it is mostly a cost reduction to Unity, especially Edicts, and to a lesser extent also a cost reduction to Research. A cost reduction is essentially a bonus, and this bonus reduces the distinctiveness and competitiveness of the Monthly Unity bonus. At the same time, a peaceful society is not a more united society; it just handles its internal disputes via other means, such as frivolous lawsuits and malicious gossip. It can also be argued that this bonus supports neither domestic peace nor prosperity, which are the things Pacifist bonuses should affect if we go by the Prosperity faction.

Happiness is currently not directly affected by any ethic, but this does not have to be the case. It would be a natural fit for the Pacifist ethic – more so than the current reduction to Empire Size from pops. Happiness and Trade Value bonuses would together cover both aspects of the Pacifist ethic and the Prosperity faction: domestic peace and prosperity. A +10% bonus to Happines (at Fanatic Pacifist) would translate to +6% Stability, -0.2 crime, and +10% Governing Ethics Attraction (and the indirect +6% Stability bonus would in turn translate to +3.6% Trade Value, +3.6% Resources from jobs, and +2.4 immigration pull). While Happiness bonuses may seem less impressive than equally sized Stability bonuses when viewed at a glance, the increased Governing Ethics Attraction ultimately translates to a greater population share for the government ethics, which in turn means not just more overall Happiness and Stability but also more Faction Unity. Simply put, a Happiness bonus may ultimately be better than a Stability bonus, and will always produce a society with less internal conflict (Crime) for every given Stability level than a direct Stability bonus would. It can also be noted that the ethic-specific edict, Peace Festivals, specifically boosts Happiness.

Edict Cost reduction is not illogical for Spiritualist, but Authoritarian is the natural fit for this bonus. The Authoritarian ethic represent centralized power, centralized authority, and edicts are almost by definition an exercise in authority. Moving the Edict Cost reduction to Authoritarian would restore Authoritarian as the main ethic for centralized power and gameplay where exerting control over your empire is a strategic cornerstone.

Worker Output has always been an uncertain fit for Authoritarian, and Egalitarian would be a strong candidate to usurp it. Productive workers are valuable workers, and valuable workers are powerful workers, at least if the societal fallout of the Black Death is anything to go by. And if there is any ethic that matches ”productive, valuable and powerful workers”, it is the Egalitarian ethic. Egalitarian empires can additionally be expected to have more skilled, educated and motivated workers than other empires, and this would most accurately be represented with a bonus to Worker Output. With both Worker and Specialist Output bonuses sharing an ethic, it would not be a far stretch to just combine them into a single Job Output bonus that includes Ruler Output as well, which would be justifiable as an expression of the same meritocratic processes that justify the bonuses to Specialist and Worker Output. Egalitarian would become more consistent in regards to what it is supposed to represent.

Faction Unity should be removed not just from Egalitarian but from ethics altogether, since it reduces the distinctiveness and competitiveness of the Monthly Unity bonus. It currently also reduces the distinctiveness of the Oligarchic and Democratic governments for Egalitarians; Fanatic Egalitarian democracies get +50% Faction Unity (and Mandate Unity, and more automatic resettlement) while Egalitarian oligarchies get +40% Faction Unity. It can also be noted that the Faction Unity bonus essentially rewards maximizing cultural and ideological purity and homogeneity, and eliminating any foreign ideological influences. Does that feel like a core value and primary objective of the freedom-loving Egalitarian ethic? While this bonus would fit nicely with both Xenophobe archetypes, particularly the Isolationist Xenophobes who fear contamination with foreign values and strive for unification around its approved (governmental) factions more than any other ethic, it would still be better for ethic distinction if Faction Unity was not part of the ethics system.

Ethics Shift Chance is currently not directly affected by any ethic, but (as with Happiness) this does not have to be the case. It would be a natural fit for the Egalitarian ethic, as Egalitarian societies allow more (political) freedoms than other societies. While this would be something of a two-edged sword, it would synergize nicely with the election/ruler mechanics of Democratic governments and most of the time it would give Egalitarian empires an easier time assimilating migrants, refugees and ”liberated” pops with foreign ideologies, as well as helping them recover more quickly from the various events that promote non-government ethics. If Egalitarian loses its Faction Unity bonus and has a single Job Output bonus, it will have room for one more bonus and it is difficult to find one more fitting than Ethics Shift Chance. It can also be noted that the ethic-specific edict, Encourage Political Thought, specifically boosts Ethics Shift Chance.

Utopian Abundance could be moved from Egalitarian to Pacifist. From a balance perspective, it could be an equalizer between the two ethics. Pacifists cannot start wars to expand and have a greater need for getting the most out of the pops they do have. This would not only align better with what the ethics represent (Egalitarian is about freedom and equality, Pacifist is abound prosperity and civilian abundance), but also with game mechanics such as the rather pacifist Civilian Economy option in Economic Policy. This would also align better with sci-fi tropes, where utopian abundance societies mostly are portrayed as Pacifist and vice versa (also consider the Federation in Star Trek) while Militarist regimes are usually portrayed as having a well-funded military but neglecting civilian needs.

Claim Influence Cost reductions facilitate more sweeping territorial claims, and in modern times sweeping territorial claims have been associated with one ethic more than any other: Xenophobe. Or, more specifically, the Supremacist variant of Xenophobe. The aggressors that made the most exceptionally sweeping territorial claims in World War II had xenophobia and supremacist ideas in common. A reduction to Claim Influence Cost can justifiably be considered a ”Lebensraum” bonus as it encourages empires to conquer vast territories and xeno pops, and as it reflects how Supremacists seemingly have a much lower threshold than others for claiming things as theirs. While it can be argued that conquerors tend to be Militarist, this can be argued to confuse behaviour and ability as Militarists are more likely to win wars than others. Not all Militarists are conquerors; there are also liberators, democratic crusaders, protectors, and defensive survivalists relying on military power to endure in a galaxy that is dark and full of horrors. Stellaris itself acknowledges that Militarist can be about other things than conquest, by letting Militarists fulfill their ”Aggressive Diplomacy” faction approval condition with the ”Liberation Wars” War Philosophy, which cannot even make claims except for the rare occassion when somebody attacks them. There is also the fact that Xenophobe already gets a bonus to claiming empty systems, and it would make some sense that it would get a bonus for claiming occupied systems as well. Ultimately, Xenophobe is a strong fit for a Claim Influence Cost reduction, and Militarist would overall be better off with something else instead. With both claim bonuses sharing the same ethic, it would also be possible to merge the two bonuses to a single bonus that affects both Claim Influence Cost and Starbase Influence Cost. This bonus would be useful to both Supremacists and Isolationists, as the former desires aggressive expansion while the latter needs to grab as much territory as possible in the early land rush. Combining the two claim type bonuses into a single bonus for this ethic (if not throughout the entire game) would also consume one less ”bonus slot”.

War Exhaustion is currently not directly affected by any ethic, but (as with Happiness and Ethics Shift Chance) this does not have to be the case. This is a bonus that would be a natural fit for the Militarist ethic, it is a bonus that every Militarist strategy and playstyle would benefit from, and unlike the passive Claim Influence Cost reduction it would actually increase their military strength and help emphasise the Militarist ethic as the main ethic for military power and military gameplay.

Pop Growth Speed would need to be moved to another ethic than Xenophobe, not just because of the issue of Xenophobe otherwise getting three bonuses but also because the combination of bonuses to Claim Influence Cost and Pop Growth Speed would be too powerful. Xenophobes would be better at acquiring pops both through growth and through conquest, and could too easily snowball out of control. An ethic that would be a better fit for a Pop Growth Speed bonus is Spiritualist. It is not only thematically appropriate, it is also necessary from a balance perspective if Spiritualist is supposed to remain a ”no robot pops” (or perhaps even ”no artificial pops”) ethic. Spiritualist needs this bonus more than any other ethic, while it can also be argued that it is very logical and natural to combine an opposition to artificial pops with a promotion of higher natural birth rates.

Monthly Unity has been a part of the Spiritualist ethic since the dawn of time. We are all used to thinking of Unity, and the more rapid acquisition of new traditions, as part of what this ethic is about. And the conservative approach would be to keep it this way. However, having spent too much time thinking about the ethics of Stellaris, something occurred to me that is difficult to unthink.
Xenophobe is a much more natural fit for a Unity bonus than Spiritualist. From the Supremacist to the Isolationist extremes, all Xenophobes share an emphasis on strong group unity, in purpose and culture, more than any other ethic. It is a defining attribute of Xenophobe. It is even in the name.
It is less easy to associate collective consensus with the Spiritualist ethic, not just when we consider the historical propensity of spiritualist movements to disunite, fracture and diversify, but also when we consider that spiritualism frequently has manifestations that do not easily lend themselves to collectivism and collective consensus on other matters. Also, while in real life spiritualists often are associated with traditions, it is more about preserved traditions than the development of new ones (which is what is taking place in Stellaris, and what Unity is used for).
By contrast, it is difficult to develop new, distinguishing traditions in open societies that embrace foreign diversity but it is easier in closed societies that want to set themselves apart from the rest of the world. With Xenophile getting Influence and Envoys while Xenophobe gets Unity and Claim Cost reductions, their different approaches and ideologies would be front and center of their gameplay and strategies.
Xenophobe has a very strong case for getting the Monthly Unity bonus, while the strongest argument that remains for Spiritualist keeping the Monthly Unity bonus is to rhetorically ask what else the ethic could be a better fit for. The ethic-specific edicts of Spiritualist and Xenophobe offer a clear illustration of the relationship between these ethics. Fear Campaign goes straight for the throat of the issue, directly promoting greater in-group Unity versus the out-groups. Veneration of Saints does not give any direct bonus, but rather increases the output of Priest jobs, whatever that may be, thereby kicking the Spiritualist definition can further down the road.
The biggest challenge in coming up with good bonuses for Spiritualist are rooted in the fact that the differences and variations found among real-life and fictional examples are legion. Furthermore, if we look at history and sci-fi tropes, spiritualist scriptures have a tendency to be used and reinterpreted as befits personal agendas and values. It is almost as if spiritualism in practice is coloured by, and acts as a reinforcement of, other values. Spiritualists exhibit tendencies associated with all other ethics, only with ”spiritual” overtones. And perhaps this is the golden answer to the ages-old question of what bonuses Spiritualist would be a good fit for, and vice versa. The flavour varies from ideological surrounding to ideological surrounding, from person to person. Spiritualist is the Soylent Green of ethics.

So what would happen if we provided a way for the benefits of Spiritualist to be influenced by the other ethics, while simultaneously resolving a long-standing design issue? Currently, excess production of Amenities is worthless and a waste of resources. However, if excess Amenities are instead converted to other abstract outputs appropriate for the empire’s ethics, and if Spiritualist gets an Amenities production bonus, Spiritualist would offer a greater ability to create benefits based on ethics via their Amenities production bonus.

• A strong case can be made for Spiritualist getting a bonus to Amenities to begin with, even if we only consider the current non-excess use of Amenities. Historically as well as in modern times, ”spiritualists” tend to provide societal and communal services that go well beyond purely religious ones (masses, ceremonies et cetera). In post-Roman Europe, spiritualists preserved and spread knowledge through the creation of libraries, schools and universities at a time when hardly anyone else bothered with such things. Similarly, spiritualists are often associated with social services, healthcare, welfare, counselling, childcare, personal support and organizing communal projects.
• I would suggest that excess Amenities are split in four shares for conversion. One share for each ethic tier, and one share for a policy choice between the various outputs. This means that Fanatic + policy could use up to three quarters of excess Amenities for one purpose, while the remainder would be used for something else. (Gestalt Consciousnesses could have the advantage that the policy choice would affect their entire conversion of excess Amenities, allowing them to be more singleminded than the many-minded eldritch horror species they share the galaxy with.)
• Examples of what excess Amenities would be converted to could include Pacifists favouring Trade Value (tourism), Militarists Naval Capacity, Xenophobes Unity, Xenophiles Influence (depending on future development directions for this resource), Materialists Research, Spiritualists Pop Growth, Authoritarians Stability (or Edict Fund), Egalitarians Job Output bonus. (Not necessarily at a straight 1:1 conversion rate for all of these, and other outputs may be better choices.)
• Spiritualist would in practice become a many-faced ethic that can dial up a core abstract output for any ethic it is paired with. In the sense that it would amplify the ”spirit” of any other ethic it is paired with, Spiritualist would be the ethic for ”spiritual” power. (You could even say that Spiritualist would put the ”Amen” in ”Amenities”...)
• Excess Amenities being converted to other, useful outputs could also be a boost to the value of Clerk jobs, as well as Agrarian Idyll, Resort Worlds and other sources of Amenities.

Lastly, it would be nice if every ethic had an ethic-unique edict. Currently, both Militarist and Materialist lack ethic-unique edicts.


TLDR SUMMARY OF THAT COLLECTION OF IDEAS

Ethic bonuses, per tier:

• Authoritarian: -10% Edict Cost, +5% Stability.
• Egalitarian: +5% Job Output, +50% Ethics Shift Chance.
• Pacifist: +5% Happiness, +10% Trade Value, and Utopian Abundance from Egalitarian.
• Militarist: +20% Ship Fire Rate, -10% War Exhaustion.
• Xenophile: +1 Envoy, +0.5 Influence.
• Xenophobe: +10% Monthly Unity, -10% Claim/Starbase Influence Cost.
• Materialist: +5% Research Speed, -10% Robot Upkeep.
• Spiritualist: +10% Pop Growth Speed, +10% Amenities.
  (Presuming that excess Amenities are converted to other abstract outputs depending on your ethics and a policy choice.)

A more conservative solution would be to keep Monthly Unity with Spiritualist and give Xenophobe something else instead.
Militarist and Materialist should also get ethic-unique edicts.


REVISIONS FOLLOWING FEEDBACK

Removed the suggestion that Utopian Abundance is moved to Pacifist. Utopian Abundance makes the most sense in a society that is both Egalitarian and Pacifist, and that combination already has access to Utopian Abundance.

Added a suggestion that whole-species slavery is removed from Authoritarian. This makes whole-species slavery more of a unique feature for Xenophobe. Serfdom is sufficiently represented by a lack of free movement combined with Stratified Economy. Authoritarians that want slaves can still pick the Slaver Guilds civic (if they don't mind enslaving pops of their main species) or Xenophobe (if they want to enslave xenos, which is a rather xenophobic desire).

Replaced the suggestion of +0.5 Influence for Xenophile with -25% Diplomatic Influence Cost. It makes for a better symmetry versus Xenophobe, and it more accurately captures the intended outcome. This also means that no ethic would have an Influence bonus.


TLDR POST-FEEDBACK

Ethic bonuses per tier (orange = new, yellow = some change, white = no change relative to 3.3.1):

• Authoritarian: -10% Edict Cost / Upkeep, +5% Stability.
• Egalitarian: +5% Job Output, +50% Ethics Shift Chance.
• Pacifist: +5% Happiness, +10% Trade Value.
• Militarist: +10% Ship Fire Rate, -10% War Exhaustion.
• Xenophile: -25% Diplomatic Influence Cost, +1 Envoy.
• Xenophobe: -10% Claim / -20% Starbase Influence Cost, +10% Monthly Unity.
• Materialist: +5% Research Speed, -10% Robot Upkeep.
• Spiritualist: +10% Pop Growth Speed, +10% Amenities.

(Presuming that excess Amenities are converted to other abstract outputs depending on your ethics and a policy choice. Otherwise the conservative solution is to keep Monthly Unity with Spiritualist and give Xenophobe something else instead.)

Authoritarian no longer enables whole-species slavery.

Militarist and Materialist get ethic-unique edicts.


Of course, there can be better ideas. There are many different ways in which the ethics could be changed.
What are your thoughts? What changes would you like to see after 3.3, if any?

 

[HFY]

A few thoughts on your ideas:

Utopian Abundance is notable because it sets all lifestyle upkeep equal, and all political power equal. That sort of equality (in status and lifestyle and power) really says Egalitarian to me. Pacifism doesn't seem like a good fit IMHO; the current placement (Egalitarianism) is much better.

That said, Pacifism could gain a new lifestyle option which nobody else has. Maybe something which compliments Agrarian Idyll.

Xenophobes are in wars more than usual: they could get a War Exhaustion bonus when fighting xenos (which is going to be most of the time).

Xenophiles are in treaties more than usual: they could get a reduction in cost for treaties, or even get paid Influence for making treaties, instead of getting more WAR CLAIMS MANA.

Materialist in common language usually means someone who cares about material things (i.e. money, sneakers, ipods, etc.) so you could give them a +% TV bonus, or put a trade value benefit in their unique Edict.

 

[apples951]

Materialist in common language usually means someone who cares about material things (i.e. money, sneakers, ipods, etc.) so you could give them a +% TV bonus, or put a trade value benefit in their unique Edict.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Materialism ≠ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_materialism

 

[HFY]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Materialism ≠ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_materialism

No kidding they're different, that's why I preface my comment with "in common language".

Examples of that definition are here:

materialist

1. someone who believes that having money and possessions is the most important…

dictionary.cambridge.org

Dictionary.com | Meanings & Definitions of English Words

The world's leading online dictionary: English definitions, synonyms, word origins, example sentences, word games, and more. A trusted authority for 25+ years!

www.dictionary.com

This would be in addition to the philosophical meaning, not in place of it.

 

[DeanTheDull]

So Tann, this is a fine argument, but it could be better...

The Authoritarian ethic has become a bottom-tier ethic for edicts. The contrast is dramatic, as it used to be a top-tier ethic for edicts, if not the very best. Not only did the ethic offer a bonus to the currency used to pay for edicts, which used to be Influence, but it also favoured a government type (Imperial) that offered a bonus to Edict Capacity.

This is a very, very strong disagree for me, because the Edict was never the basis of Authoritarian's strength- the early-game warmonger potential, slavery-worker economy, and bio-ascension synergies were, and these advantages have all gotten better in the 3.3 economy.

To start, early-game warmongering is the best warmongering, and early-game wars are limited by three main resources: influence to make claims, minerals to produce the alloys, and CG to employ the scientists. Authoritrian was the best of all of these, being the only normal empire to start with a day 1 influence advantage, a worker-job advantage for more minerals per pop too feed the alloys, and stratified economy CG savings from those workers to spare for early-game science. Now, in 3.2 faction influence could make up the difference, but factions don't produce influence anymore, making Authoriatarian the only source of influence-generation for claims (as opposed to discounts to cost).

The slavery/worker economy is also more important in the 3.3 sprawl meta. This isn't just for the industrial production minerals for the war rush, but the output-per-sprawl ratio of each district. Stacking 5% authoritarian + 10% chattel slave + 5% slave processing center is a good start at a significantly better value for the sprawl you're going to accumulate over time, which is affecting those techs and traditions.

Bio-Ascension was also an ascension that synergized exceptionally well with slavery builds do to pop min-maxing, and the value of Bio-Ascension (and Psionic Ascension) has gone up since the tradition/tech slowdown has pushed Synthetic Ascension back. Especially with the value of gene-modding on Docile to all pops for significant sprawl savings at scale, this is a natural synergy of Authoritarian that's gotten better in the context of the meta.

Heck, combining some of these, and stratified-clerk bio-ascension is a significant combo worth considering, due to how much district efficiency you can get from stuffing 8 clerks/2 merchants a district vs just 2 jobs a district. As pop sprawl declines- such as from bio-ascension or other combos- the district efficiency matters more, and with stratified economy those clerks will both cost basically none of the CG they produce, but also be guaranteed to optimized traits (Thrifty/Docile/Charismatic/etc.).

 

[DeanTheDull]

Separately on what a faction rework should prioritize-

Instead of a change to the macro-balance of ethic bonuses, I'd recommend a focus on faction demands and faction-pop implications.

Ethic bonuses- with the possible exception of Xenophobe, which is arguably bad/self-countering- are broadly balanced and reasonable at this point in stellaris. If you change them heavily, you have to spend dev cycles re-balancing them because they're so high-impact, which delays developer attention for other things that aren't well balanced, like faction mechanics and internal politics.


Faction demands and ethic attraction is something that could use a revisit regardless, becuse they are so not balanced in terms of ethics attraction or faction approval. Really this means xenophile, which can be overwhelmingly strong unless you actively undercut it AND happier than all other factions, but other things as well. Currently the main dynamic of faction happiness- besides the new unity output that replaces influence- is... +10 happiness if you're in the happy range, or -40 pop happiness if they're not. But there's enough ways to mitigate pop happiness (such as political weighting) that it never really matters on a strategic level, and in time everyone converts or conversion to your ethics isn't even important.

An ethics review should prioritize on making unhappy pops and factions matter more, but also- and not just by contrast- make happy pops matter more as well. Now, I'm not saying happy state factions should gift you a habitat every 50 years, but that wouldn't be the worst idea either. Rewards for playing the faction management game well, penalties for ignorring it, that sort of thing.


Aside from the much-wanted 'internal politics,' this makes ethic dissent a strategic balance against Wide-Conquest empires. If rebellions of dissident ethics can rise up, war mongers need to slow down and consolidate, reducing the wide-snowball. If happy dominant factions do give you the equivalent of a nice planet every 50 years, that can be a reward worth spending unity on building.

 

[Pancakelord]

• Pacifist: +5% Happiness, +10% Trade Value, and Utopian Abundance from Egalitarian.
• Militarist: +20% Ship Fire Rate, -10% War Exhaustion.

Of course, there can be better ideas. There are many different ways in which the ethics could be changed.
What are your thoughts? What changes would you like to see after 3.3, if any?

Id skip the happiness on pacifists and give them a fat buff to starbase damage, starbase upkeep reduction and things like that. As they're the opposite to militarists and should be defending - a giant static gun should be fine with a pacifist (maybe not a fanatic pacifist but oh well). It cant be fired offensively.
It's genuinely hard to not have happy pops in a pacifist society so throwing more on there is a bit of a waste. Trade value does feel better on pacifist as its the prosperity faction (apparently war isnt good for business in the far future).


I also think more active effects ought to be used to further incentivise playing to the ethic rather than just being the ethic.

• E.g. militarists can spend unity on a "war bonds" edict that will award energy credits each time they kill a ship (50% if an ally kills one). Double payout during humiliation wars / vs rivals. To make the most out of that you'd want to fight, and fight often... Ideally vs people weaker than you.
• Spiritualists can use a special variation of expel excess population [or maybe espionage] (has anyone -ever ever used that decision? lol) to send their spiritualist pops off as missionaries in to other empires, each time a target empire gains a spiritualist pop, you gain some resources (maybe pop growth to offset haemorrhaging pops).
• Pacifists can spend influence/espionage to increase war exhaustion for other nations. even ones they're not fighting. letting them end wars sooner. every time a war is white peaced out - anywhere in the galaxy, provided they have comms - a pacifist gets some unity.

 

[hart30]

I believe 3.4 is already planned out by the devs. I read they want to focus on the military ai there and there also are the situation modifiers (the devs approach to internal politics).
The discussed ethic improvements here are probably too big for a smaller patch. So maybe for 4.0?

 

[Troyen]

3.4 is likely already planned out and projects scheduled, but if I recall the 3.2-3.3 timeline correctly, the pitch meeting for 3.5's proposals would be in about a month or two. With three-month patch cycles and about 6-9 months for systems design (Unity rework was teased last summer), they could work on major updates to the ethics and factions for 3.5/3.6, if that topic interests them.

 

[Nevars]

Materialist in common language usually means someone who cares about material things (i.e. money, sneakers, ipods, etc.) so you could give them a +% TV bonus, or put a trade value benefit in their unique Edict.

I disagree because this is not what materialism in Stellaris is about, it is specifically materialism philosophy not economic materialism like other people already mentioned.

Authoritarian's strength- the early-game warmonger potential, slavery-worker economy

It's really unfortunate that in Stellaris authoritarian get associate with slavery if not outright becoming the slavery itself because authoritarian by itself doesn't really concerned with slavery much, irl you will find that almost all form of governments and ideology did engage with slavery and one can even argue that right now the most prolific slave state is the one with egalitarian core value, not authoritarian.

So I'm all support for any suggestion that will separate authoritarian from slave in Stellaris.

 

[Tannhäuser Cake]

Ethic bonuses- with the possible exception of Xenophobe, which is arguably bad/self-countering- are broadly balanced and reasonable at this point in stellaris.

Spiritualist alone disproves this, especially after 3.3, even if we account for the likelihood of the Faction Unity and ethics attraction systems being rebalanced.

Utopian Abundance is notable because it sets all lifestyle upkeep equal, and all political power equal. That sort of equality (in status and lifestyle and power) really says Egalitarian to me. Pacifism doesn't seem like a good fit IMHO; the current placement (Egalitarianism) is much better. That said, Pacifism could gain a new lifestyle option which nobody else has. Maybe something which compliments Agrarian Idyll.

I will probably remove that part - was close to cutting it anyway, along with the other things that got cut (such as government bonuses), before submitting the original post.

Xenophobes are in wars more than usual: they could get a War Exhaustion bonus when fighting xenos (which is going to be most of the time).

Only the Supremacist variant; not the Isolationists. It is better to tie a War Exhaustion bonus to Militarist, which aggressive supremacists would either start as or drift towards anyway (being at war, having hostile neighbours etc. increase Militarist attraction).

Xenophiles are in treaties more than usual: they could get a reduction in cost for treaties, or even get paid Influence for making treaties, instead of getting more WAR CLAIMS MANA.

Them being "in treaties more than usual" reduces the amount of Influence that would be left for convincing others of their claims. In this regard, a Diplomatic Influence Cost reduction would ultimately not be that different from an Influence bonus; they would still have more Influence left for claims. Though I will concede that it would make for a nice symmetry if Xenophobes simultaneously get a Claim Influence Cost reduction. A concern I have, though, is that if espionage actions start costing Influence, this might not be covered by a Diplomatic Influence Cost reduction (though whether that is a good or a bad thing would depend on whether one thinks Xenophiles should have an espionage benefit).

Currently the Diplomacy tree grants -50% Diplomatic Influence Cost. If Xenophile offered -25% Diplomatic Influence Cost, with -50% for Fanatic Xenophile, the result would be that most Fanatic Xenophile empires would have entirely cost-free diplomatic agreements, independence guarantees et cetera (as far as Influence is concerned). Would this be a desirable outcome?

It's really unfortunate that in Stellaris authoritarian get associate with slavery if not outright becoming the slavery itself because authoritarian by itself doesn't really concerned with slavery much, irl you will find that almost all form of governments and ideology did engage with slavery and one can even argue that right now the most prolific slave state is the one with egalitarian core value, not authoritarian.

So I'm all support for any suggestion that will seperate authoritarian from slave in Stellaris.

A suggestion I cut at the last minute before submitting the original post was actually that whole-species slavery could be removed from Authoritarian, to make it more of a "unique selling point" for Xenophobe. Being able to prevent the free movement of pops, together with Stratified Economy, is sufficient to represent serfdom. Authoritarians could also still pick the Slaver Guilds civic if they want to oppress their population even more.

 

[Foxosaur]

Thanks for making this thread, you present a good case and its well explained ^^.

Authoritarian comments

From my observations of Discord and the forums, I think most people play some degree of Authoritarian and that won't really change going forward, people simply enjoy one of Stellaris' key functions too much; War and varying levels of domination (and different forms). Getting the immediate worker bonus (and influence) is pretty nice and lends itself really well to the early game.

(Maybe Stellaris devs can share some telemetry like HOI4 just did.)

That itself is really powerful for wide playstyles / those with many planets / habitats. I don't think 3.3 will / has changed that usefulness overly. Instead, the recent hype around about Pacifist might be because I started openly talking about it, on both Discord a lot and in my own suggestion threads and I think people got curious and tried it. Most people saying that Pacifism is boring or even cringey. What is actually boring though is everyone playing a Militarist / Warmonger. Anyway, combine Authoritarian with Militarist / Xenophobe and you have a very fast growing wide empire.

What I think Authoritarians might be disliking is that Influence becomes more redundant by mid game, or completely even. (Until todays update anyway) and a feeling the balance needs to be adjusted. You still have a very nice scaling worker output bonus and I think influence generally just needs more purpose instead.


Pacifist comparison

It has a nice Sprawl modifier and as its % based, will have a growing impact on the widest of Empires. Unlike the Authoritarian Worker bonus, which is a guaranteed bonus, the Stability bonus is in fact not guaranteed and can even cost you and that bonus is worth no more than 3% worker output at its most potent (or 6% as Fan Pacifist). As well as upto 3%(6% for Fanatic) in trade value. (*Shakes fist at Crime corporations*)

If you treat your citizens well, they'll be very productive with Utopian Abundance (Egalitarianism) but it's still missing features that don't exist to make a Fanatic Pacifist viable in use yet. The consumer goods upkeep is very high, and depending on a playstyles focus, can ruin the traditional "Research Homeworld" meta or the reverse, your economy. Choices here can lead you to either poor research or an entire economy collapse that may exist for years and thus snowball with poor Stability. Or a balanced medium of the two.

For a regular pacifist, that seemingly natural affinity with Egalitarianism is still weak militarily. Faction influence not even having any meaning until they spawn leaving you with a Specialist Output bonus which again, will have limited use in early game if your caring enough to keep your basic resource economy intact for awhile.

Any degree of Pacifist is liable to get squashed by rushing players, the lack of impactful early bonuses just make it that way. But by mid game and later, the sprawl bonus will have meaning.

So what you have from that I feel is that Authoritarian is in general a productive ethic and no doubt has lot of impact in 30 year peace multiplayer games, as well as the whole game. Pacifism, coming into being powerful years later - Whilst being militarily vulnerable to a typical MP player (and very aggressive AIs) from day one.

Maybe Pacifist + Authoritarian works as a combo after all, the bonus's suggest it will and I should try it out.

Without taking this thread down a discussion about Pacifist, I think you need to implement something for Defensive Wars (and even Liberation Wars) policy. Thereby enabling a Fanatic Pacifist first. Then it should feel easier to mix and match ethic bonuses around.

 

[Nevars]

Currently the Diplomacy tree grants -50% Diplomatic Influence Cost. If Xenophile offered -25% Diplomatic Influence Cost, with -50% for Fanatic Xenophile, the result would be that most Fanatic Xenophile empires would have entirely cost-free diplomatic agreements, independence guarantees et cetera (as far as Influence is concerned). Would this be a desirable outcome?

Basically what they used to be able to achieved but dev might have some reason of changing it to what we have now tho.

 

[HFY]

Only the Supremacist variant; not the Isolationists. It is better to tie a War Exhaustion bonus to Militarist, which aggressive supremacists would either start as or drift towards anyway (being at war, having hostile neighbours etc. increase Militarist attraction).

Makes sense.

It's my impression that Isolationists get picked on more than Xenophiles and other Federation-builders, but that's just anecdotal -- I don't play isolationists much.

Them being "in treaties more than usual" reduces the amount of Influence that would be left for convincing others of their claims. In this regard, a Diplomatic Influence Cost reduction would ultimately not be that different from an Influence bonus; they would still have more Influence left for claims. Though I will concede that it would make for a nice symmetry if Xenophobes simultaneously get a Claim Influence Cost reduction. A concern I have, though, is that if espionage actions start costing Influence, this might not be covered by a Diplomatic Influence Cost reduction (though whether that is a good or a bad thing would depend on whether one thinks Xenophiles should have an espionage benefit).

Currently the Diplomacy tree grants -50% Diplomatic Influence Cost. If Xenophile offered -25% Diplomatic Influence Cost, with -50% for Fanatic Xenophile, the result would be that most Fanatic Xenophile empires would have entirely cost-free diplomatic agreements, independence guarantees et cetera (as far as Influence is concerned). Would this be a desirable outcome?

Yeah basically what I saw was: Xenophiles who make NO treaties would be rewarded with bonus war claims mana, and that's not what I consider core to Xenophile design.

Either cheaper treaties, or some reward from treaties -- like bonus to trade, or happiness of Xenophile pops for every treaty (up to some reasonable number, maybe 10), or whatever -- would be a better fit.

I do like the symmetry of Phobe getting cheaper claims and Phile getting cheaper treaties.

 

[methegrate]

SUMMARY

The 3.3 Unity rework is a big step forward, but there is now a bigger need to review the bonuses from ethics and governments. The main issues are that Authoritarian has gone from top- to bottom-tier in regards to edicts, that several ethics offer direct or near-direct Unity benefits, that the ethic with the Monthly Unity bonus is not the strongest alternative for Unity, and that the roles and uses of both Influence and Unity have changed significantly since they were originally assigned bonuses from the Authoritarian and Spiritualist ethics. This is the most appropriate time in years to consider the bigger picture of the ethics system, with a focus on design consistency, ethics distinctiveness, game balance and gameplay enjoyment. Through discussion we can more surely identify how ethics may be improved, and as a starting point I have listed a number of ideas further down in this post. If you are impatient, feel free to skip forward to the TLDR summary.


ISSUES IN NEED OF SPECIAL CONSIDERATION

The 3.3 Unity rework goes a long way towards making Unity a more important resource. While the changes create a number of balance and design issues that need to be addressed in further patches, it is a big step forward towards a potential state where the Stellaris gameplay experience may be far richer and more diverse than it ever has been. Ethics design, balancing and distinction has been a subject of debate since the release of the game, but as of the 3.3 Unity rework the ethics system needs attention more than it has in a very long time.

At the heart of the matter are three core issues:

1. The Authoritarian ethic has become a bottom-tier ethic for edicts. The contrast is dramatic, as it used to be a top-tier ethic for edicts, if not the very best. Not only did the ethic offer a bonus to the currency used to pay for edicts, which used to be Influence, but it also favoured a government type (Imperial) that offered a bonus to Edict Capacity.
2. Several ethics offer direct or near-direct Unity benefits. This removes a lot of distinction between the ethics in terms of gameplay experience, and reduces the value of picking the ethic with the direct Monthly Unity bonus as its core feature. Besides the Monthly Unity bonus (Spiritualist), there is the Faction Unity bonus (Egalitarian), the Fear Campaign edict’s Monthly Unity bonus (Xenophobe), and the reduction to Empire Size from pops (Pacifist) which is practically the same as a big bonus to Unity (and a lesser bonus to Research). This all adds up to Spiritualist’s Monthly Unity bonus not being a distinct feature, not being a significant advantage, and in several cases not even being a better option than the alternatives.
   (Although the Veneration of Saints edict can be argued to be a de facto Unity bonus for Spiritualist, its bonus to Priest output is comparatively insignificant as most Unity comes from other sources.)
3. The roles of Unity and Influence have changed. These resources no longer represent the same concepts and abilities they used to, and these new roles need to be taken into consideration by the design of the ethics system.

In addition to these, there are also some other long-standing balance and consistency issues with ethics. (While it can be argued that Faction Unity is among these, as it is strongly tied to the ethics system, there already is a separate thread for the Faction Unity issues. For the purposes of this thread, the Faction Unity issues are ignored.)

Essentially, the bonuses of several ethics need to be re-evaluated. As all ethics are part of a greater whole, now may also be the most appropriate time in years to consider the big picture of the ethics system, how the different ethics compare to each other, and how their respective designs contribute to gameplay value. Or, put differently: design consistency, ethics distinctiveness, game balance and gameplay enjoyment. My hope is that, through discussion, we can more surely identify what roles and what bonuses different ethics should have. As a starting point, I have listed a number of ideas below. Some of these may seem familiar from previous threads; they are now all brought together here, in a single thread, along with some new observations and ideas. If you are impatient, feel free to skip forward to the TLDR summary.


A COLLECTION OF IDEAS

Influence no longer represents internal domination. As of 3.3, Influence is solely about external affairs. Authoritarian is no longer a strong fit for the Influence bonus. Xenophile is the new natural ethic for an Influence bonus, as Influence will mainly be used for diplomatic actions, diplomatic treaties, making others recognise your claims, and pushing Galactic Community resolutions. The Influence bonus offers great synergy with the Envoy bonus, and together they can solidify Xenophile as the main ethic for diplomatic power and diplomatic gameplay.

Stability is not an illogical bonus for Pacifist, but Authoritarian is a stronger fit. Maintaining order and stability is THE primary goal of any Authoritarian government. Stability and order is THE one promise to the people that most (if not all) Authoritarian regimes have in common and base their legitimacy upon. ”Say what you like about the dictatorship, at least it makes the space trains run on time.” It can also be noted that the ethic-specific edict, Information Quarantine, specifically boosts Stability.
(It should further be noted that Stability does not protect planets from Crime as it is caused by unhappiness, and Stratified Economy has more unhappy pops than any other living standard. Authoritarian empires could expect significantly higher Crime levels for any given Stability value, when compared to less unequal empires with more Happiness-based Stability.)

Trade Value is not an illogical bonus for Xenophile, but if Xenophile is to receive the Influence bonus it will need to drop either the Envoy bonus or the Trade Value bonus. As noted above, the Envoy bonus offers synergy with the Influence bonus. Meanwhile, Pacifist has always been a strong(er) fit for the Trade Value bonus, when considering that the Prosperity faction is even more concerned with material prosperity than it is with peace. Passing the Trade Value bonus to Pacifist would also contribute to it being the main ethic for economic power and economic gameplay.

Empire Size from pops reduction should be removed not just from Pacifist but from ethics altogether since it is mostly a cost reduction to Unity, especially Edicts, and to a lesser extent also a cost reduction to Research. A cost reduction is essentially a bonus, and this bonus reduces the distinctiveness and competitiveness of the Monthly Unity bonus. At the same time, a peaceful society is not a more united society; it just handles its internal disputes via other means, such as frivolous lawsuits and malicious gossip. It can also be argued that this bonus supports neither domestic peace nor prosperity, which are the things Pacifist bonuses should affect if we go by the Prosperity faction.

Happiness is currently not directly affected by any ethic, but this does not have to be the case. It would be a natural fit for the Pacifist ethic – more so than the current reduction to Empire Size from pops. Happiness and Trade Value bonuses would together cover both aspects of the Pacifist ethic and the Prosperity faction: domestic peace and prosperity. A +10% bonus to Happines (at Fanatic Pacifist) would translate to +6% Stability, -0.2 crime, and +10% Governing Ethics Attraction (and the indirect +6% Stability bonus would in turn translate to +3.6% Trade Value, +3.6% Resources from jobs, and +2.4 immigration pull). While Happiness bonuses may seem less impressive than equally sized Stability bonuses when viewed at a glance, the increased Governing Ethics Attraction ultimately translates to a greater population share for the government ethics, which in turn means not just more overall Happiness and Stability but also more Faction Unity. Simply put, a Happiness bonus may ultimately be better than a Stability bonus, and will always produce a society with less internal conflict (Crime) for every given Stability level than a direct Stability bonus would. It can also be noted that the ethic-specific edict, Peace Festivals, specifically boosts Happiness.

Edict Cost reduction is not illogical for Spiritualist, but Authoritarian is the natural fit for this bonus. The Authoritarian ethic represent centralized power, centralized authority, and edicts are almost by definition an exercise in authority. Moving the Edict Cost reduction to Authoritarian would restore Authoritarian as the main ethic for centralized power and gameplay where exerting control over your empire is a strategic cornerstone.

Worker Output has always been an uncertain fit for Authoritarian, and Egalitarian would be a strong candidate to usurp it. Productive workers are valuable workers, and valuable workers are powerful workers, at least if the societal fallout of the Black Death is anything to go by. And if there is any ethic that matches ”productive, valuable and powerful workers”, it is the Egalitarian ethic. Egalitarian empires can additionally be expected to have more skilled, educated and motivated workers than other empires, and this would most accurately be represented with a bonus to Worker Output. With both Worker and Specialist Output bonuses sharing an ethic, it would not be a far stretch to just combine them into a single Job Output bonus that includes Ruler Output as well, which would be justifiable as an expression of the same meritocratic processes that justify the bonuses to Specialist and Worker Output. Egalitarian would become more consistent in regards to what it is supposed to represent.

Faction Unity should be removed not just from Egalitarian but from ethics altogether, since it reduces the distinctiveness and competitiveness of the Monthly Unity bonus. It currently also reduces the distinctiveness of the Oligarchic and Democratic governments for Egalitarians; Fanatic Egalitarian democracies get +50% Faction Unity (and Mandate Unity, and more automatic resettlement) while Egalitarian oligarchies get +40% Faction Unity. It can also be noted that the Faction Unity bonus essentially rewards maximizing cultural and ideological purity and homogeneity, and eliminating any foreign ideological influences. Does that feel like a core value and primary objective of the freedom-loving Egalitarian ethic? While this bonus would fit nicely with both Xenophobe archetypes, particularly the Isolationist Xenophobes who fear contamination with foreign values and strive for unification around its approved (governmental) factions more than any other ethic, it would still be better for ethic distinction if Faction Unity was not part of the ethics system.

Ethics Shift Chance is currently not directly affected by any ethic, but (as with Happiness) this does not have to be the case. It would be a natural fit for the Egalitarian ethic, as Egalitarian societies allow more (political) freedoms than other societies. While this would be something of a two-edged sword, it would synergize nicely with the election/ruler mechanics of Democratic governments and most of the time it would give Egalitarian empires an easier time assimilating migrants, refugees and ”liberated” pops with foreign ideologies, as well as helping them recover more quickly from the various events that promote non-government ethics. If Egalitarian loses its Faction Unity bonus and has a single Job Output bonus, it will have room for one more bonus and it is difficult to find one more fitting than Ethics Shift Chance. It can also be noted that the ethic-specific edict, Encourage Political Thought, specifically boosts Ethics Shift Chance.

Utopian Abundance could be moved from Egalitarian to Pacifist. From a balance perspective, it could be an equalizer between the two ethics. Pacifists cannot start wars to expand and have a greater need for getting the most out of the pops they do have. This would not only align better with what the ethics represent (Egalitarian is about freedom and equality, Pacifist is abound prosperity and civilian abundance), but also with game mechanics such as the rather pacifist Civilian Economy option in Economic Policy. This would also align better with sci-fi tropes, where utopian abundance societies mostly are portrayed as Pacifist and vice versa (also consider the Federation in Star Trek) while Militarist regimes are usually portrayed as having a well-funded military but neglecting civilian needs.

Claim Influence Cost reductions facilitate more sweeping territorial claims, and in modern times sweeping territorial claims have been associated with one ethic more than any other: Xenophobe. Or, more specifically, the Supremacist variant of Xenophobe. The aggressors that made the most exceptionally sweeping territorial claims in World War II had xenophobia and supremacist ideas in common. A reduction to Claim Influence Cost can justifiably be considered a ”Lebensraum” bonus as it encourages empires to conquer vast territories and xeno pops, and as it reflects how Supremacists seemingly have a much lower threshold than others for claiming things as theirs. While it can be argued that conquerors tend to be Militarist, this can be argued to confuse behaviour and ability as Militarists are more likely to win wars than others. Not all Militarists are conquerors; there are also liberators, democratic crusaders, protectors, and defensive survivalists relying on military power to endure in a galaxy that is dark and full of horrors. Stellaris itself acknowledges that Militarist can be about other things than conquest, by letting Militarists fulfill their ”Aggressive Diplomacy” faction approval condition with the ”Liberation Wars” War Philosophy, which cannot even make claims except for the rare occassion when somebody attacks them. There is also the fact that Xenophobe already gets a bonus to claiming empty systems, and it would make some sense that it would get a bonus for claiming occupied systems as well. Ultimately, Xenophobe is a strong fit for a Claim Influence Cost reduction, and Militarist would overall be better off with something else instead. With both claim bonuses sharing the same ethic, it would also be possible to merge the two bonuses to a single bonus that affects both Claim Influence Cost and Starbase Influence Cost. This bonus would be useful to both Supremacists and Isolationists, as the former desires aggressive expansion while the latter needs to grab as much territory as possible in the early land rush. Combining the two claim type bonuses into a single bonus for this ethic (if not throughout the entire game) would also consume one less ”bonus slot”.

War Exhaustion is currently not directly affected by any ethic, but (as with Happiness and Ethics Shift Chance) this does not have to be the case. This is a bonus that would be a natural fit for the Militarist ethic, it is a bonus that every Militarist strategy and playstyle would benefit from, and unlike the passive Claim Influence Cost reduction it would actually increase their military strength and help emphasise the Militarist ethic as the main ethic for military power and military gameplay.

Pop Growth Speed would need to be moved to another ethic than Xenophobe, not just because of the issue of Xenophobe otherwise getting three bonuses but also because the combination of bonuses to Claim Influence Cost and Pop Growth Speed would be too powerful. Xenophobes would be better at acquiring pops both through growth and through conquest, and could too easily snowball out of control. An ethic that would be a better fit for a Pop Growth Speed bonus is Spiritualist. It is not only thematically appropriate, it is also necessary from a balance perspective if Spiritualist is supposed to remain a ”no robot pops” (or perhaps even ”no artificial pops”) ethic. Spiritualist needs this bonus more than any other ethic, while it can also be argued that it is very logical and natural to combine an opposition to artificial pops with a promotion of higher natural birth rates.

Monthly Unity has been a part of the Spiritualist ethic since the dawn of time. We are all used to thinking of Unity, and the more rapid acquisition of new traditions, as part of what this ethic is about. And the conservative approach would be to keep it this way. However, having spent too much time thinking about the ethics of Stellaris, something occurred to me that is difficult to unthink.
Xenophobe is a much more natural fit for a Unity bonus than Spiritualist. From the Supremacist to the Isolationist extremes, all Xenophobes share an emphasis on strong group unity, in purpose and culture, more than any other ethic. It is a defining attribute of Xenophobe. It is even in the name.
It is less easy to associate collective consensus with the Spiritualist ethic, not just when we consider the historical propensity of spiritualist movements to disunite, fracture and diversify, but also when we consider that spiritualism frequently has manifestations that do not easily lend themselves to collectivism and collective consensus on other matters. Also, while in real life spiritualists often are associated with traditions, it is more about preserved traditions than the development of new ones (which is what is taking place in Stellaris, and what Unity is used for).
By contrast, it is difficult to develop new, distinguishing traditions in open societies that embrace foreign diversity but it is easier in closed societies that want to set themselves apart from the rest of the world. With Xenophile getting Influence and Envoys while Xenophobe gets Unity and Claim Cost reductions, their different approaches and ideologies would be front and center of their gameplay and strategies.
Xenophobe has a very strong case for getting the Monthly Unity bonus, while the strongest argument that remains for Spiritualist keeping the Monthly Unity bonus is to rhetorically ask what else the ethic could be a better fit for. The ethic-specific edicts of Spiritualist and Xenophobe offer a clear illustration of the relationship between these ethics. Fear Campaign goes straight for the throat of the issue, directly promoting greater in-group Unity versus the out-groups. Veneration of Saints does not give any direct bonus, but rather increases the output of Priest jobs, whatever that may be, thereby kicking the Spiritualist definition can further down the road.
The biggest challenge in coming up with good bonuses for Spiritualist are rooted in the fact that the differences and variations found among real-life and fictional examples are legion. Furthermore, if we look at history and sci-fi tropes, spiritualist scriptures have a tendency to be used and reinterpreted as befits personal agendas and values. It is almost as if spiritualism in practice is coloured by, and acts as a reinforcement of, other values. Spiritualists exhibit tendencies associated with all other ethics, only with ”spiritual” overtones. And perhaps this is the golden answer to the ages-old question of what bonuses Spiritualist would be a good fit for, and vice versa. The flavour varies from ideological surrounding to ideological surrounding, from person to person. Spiritualist is the Soylent Green of ethics.

So what would happen if we provided a way for the benefits of Spiritualist to be influenced by the other ethics, while simultaneously resolving a long-standing design issue? Currently, excess production of Amenities is worthless and a waste of resources. However, if excess Amenities are instead converted to other abstract outputs appropriate for the empire’s ethics, and if Spiritualist gets an Amenities production bonus, Spiritualist would offer a greater ability to create benefits based on ethics via their Amenities production bonus.

• A strong case can be made for Spiritualist getting a bonus to Amenities to begin with, even if we only consider the current non-excess use of Amenities. Historically as well as in modern times, ”spiritualists” tend to provide societal and communal services that go well beyond purely religious ones (masses, ceremonies et cetera). In post-Roman Europe, spiritualists preserved and spread knowledge through the creation of libraries, schools and universities at a time when hardly anyone else bothered with such things. Similarly, spiritualists are often associated with social services, healthcare, welfare, counselling, childcare, personal support and organizing communal projects.
• I would suggest that excess Amenities are split in four shares for conversion. One share for each ethic tier, and one share for a policy choice between the various outputs. This means that Fanatic + policy could use up to three quarters of excess Amenities for one purpose, while the remainder would be used for something else. (Gestalt Consciousnesses could have the advantage that the policy choice would affect their entire conversion of excess Amenities, allowing them to be more singleminded than the many-minded eldritch horror species they share the galaxy with.)
• Examples of what excess Amenities would be converted to could include Pacifists favouring Trade Value (tourism), Militarists Naval Capacity, Xenophobes Unity, Xenophiles Influence (depending on future development directions for this resource), Materialists Research, Spiritualists Pop Growth, Authoritarians Stability (or Edict Fund), Egalitarians Job Output bonus. (Not necessarily at a straight 1:1 conversion rate for all of these, and other outputs may be better choices.)
• Spiritualist would in practice become a many-faced ethic that can dial up a core abstract output for any ethic it is paired with. In the sense that it would amplify the ”spirit” of any other ethic it is paired with, Spiritualist would be the ethic for ”spiritual” power. (You could even say that Spiritualist would put the ”Amen” in ”Amenities”...)
• Excess Amenities being converted to other, useful outputs could also be a boost to the value of Clerk jobs, as well as Agrarian Idyll, Resort Worlds and other sources of Amenities.

Lastly, it would be nice if every ethic had an ethic-unique edict. Currently, both Militarist and Materialist lack ethic-unique edicts.


TLDR SUMMARY OF THAT COLLECTION OF IDEAS

Ethic bonuses, per tier:

• Authoritarian: -10% Edict Cost, +5% Stability.
• Egalitarian: +5% Job Output, +50% Ethics Shift Chance.
• Pacifist: +5% Happiness, +10% Trade Value, and Utopian Abundance from Egalitarian.
• Militarist: +20% Ship Fire Rate, -10% War Exhaustion.
• Xenophile: +1 Envoy, +0.5 Influence.
• Xenophobe: +10% Monthly Unity, -10% Claim/Starbase Influence Cost.
• Materialist: +5% Research Speed, -10% Robot Upkeep.
• Spiritualist: +10% Pop Growth Speed, +10% Amenities.
  (Presuming that excess Amenities are converted to other abstract outputs depending on your ethics and a policy choice.)

A more conservative solution would be to keep Monthly Unity with Spiritualist and give Xenophobe something else instead.
Militarist and Materialist should also get ethic-unique edicts.


REVISIONS FOLLOWING FEEDBACK

Removed the suggestion that Utopian Abundance is moved to Pacifist. Utopian Abundance makes the most sense in a society that is both Egalitarian and Pacifist, and that combination already has access to Utopian Abundance.

Added a suggestion that whole-species slavery is removed from Authoritarian. This makes whole-species slavery more of a unique feature for Xenophobe. Serfdom is sufficiently represented by a lack of free movement combined with Stratified Economy. Authoritarians that want slaves can still pick the Slaver Guilds civic (if they don't mind enslaving pops of their main species) or Xenophobe (if they want to enslave xenos, which is a rather xenophobic desire).

Replaced the suggestion of +0.5 Influence for Xenophile with -25% Diplomatic Influence Cost. It makes for a better symmetry versus Xenophobe, and it more accurately captures the intended outcome. This also means that no ethic would have an Influence bonus.


TLDR POST-FEEDBACK

Ethic bonuses per tier (orange = new, yellow = some change, white = no change relative to 3.3.1):

• Authoritarian: -10% Edict Cost, +5% Stability.
• Egalitarian: +5% Job Output, +50% Ethics Shift Chance.
• Pacifist: +5% Happiness, +10% Trade Value.
• Militarist: +10% Ship Fire Rate, -10% War Exhaustion.
• Xenophile: -25% Diplomatic Influence Cost, +1 Envoy.
• Xenophobe: -10% Claim/Starbase Influence Cost, +10% Monthly Unity.
• Materialist: +5% Research Speed, -10% Robot Upkeep.
• Spiritualist: +10% Pop Growth Speed, +10% Amenities.

(Presuming that excess Amenities are converted to other abstract outputs depending on your ethics and a policy choice. Otherwise the conservative solution is to keep Monthly Unity with Spiritualist and give Xenophobe something else instead.)

Authoritarian no longer enables whole-species slavery.

Militarist and Materialist get ethic-unique edicts.


Of course, there can be better ideas. There are many different ways in which the ethics could be changed.
What are your thoughts? What changes would you like to see after 3.3, if any?

Fwiw, I think these are fantastic suggestions and I would love to see them implemented.

I think you're absolutely right. These ideas would give a much clearer sense of purpose and role to each ethic, and I think your version of spiritualism would be a hell of a lot of fun to play.

The only notes I would add in:

- I think @Pancakelord is right. In addition to the bonus structures, each ethic should have something actively related to its gameplay. There should be something that shapes what your empire does in addition to what your empire is. I've always loved the idea, for example, of having spiritualist empires driven by how many pops they convert, or by having militarist incentivized to stay at war.

- I think materialism actually ends up a little bit lacking here. It's not that the ethic isn't clearly defined, it is. But your new format gives each pair of ethics a really clear sense of opposition to each other. (Militarism vs. Pacifism: Take the resources vs. trade for the resources. Authoritarianism vs. Egalitarianism: Grow through top-down authority vs. grow by emphasizing the individuals. Etc.) I'm not sure that materialism vs. spiritualism has quite the same clear distinction here.

- With egalitarianism, is ethic drift really that big of a deal? My concern is that, in my games I've simply never seen it matter. Admittedly, this is all tied in to the faction system, which is a whole different thing. The answer might be "fix factions." But that aside, idk... I've never really noticed pop ethics matter one way or another in my games.

 

[Tannhäuser Cake]

Fwiw, I think these are fantastic suggestions and I would love to see them implemented.

I think you're absolutely right. These ideas would give a much clearer sense of purpose and role to each ethic, and I think your version of spiritualism would be a hell of a lot of fun to play.

Thank you for the kind words! And thank you for commenting on the Spiritualism suggestion. I had actually expected more discussions on that item. I will probably elaborate more on it in a later post.

The only notes I would add in:

- I think @Pancakelord is right. In addition to the bonus structures, each ethic should have something actively related to its gameplay. There should be something that shapes what your empire does in addition to what your empire is. I've always loved the idea, for example, of having spiritualist empires driven by how many pops they convert, or by having militarist incentivized to stay at war.

This may be something that is better handled in the Faction system. It is more related to the ongoing gameplay, while the ethics effects mainly concern fundamental differences in aptitudes due to different ethos. Though it can be noted that, for instance, a reduced War Exhaustion would help Militarist empires stay at war longer before they are forced to sign a peace.

- I think materialism actually ends up a little bit lacking here. It's not that the ethic isn't clearly defined, it is. But your new format gives each pair of ethics a really clear sense of opposition to each other. (Militarism vs. Pacifism: Take the resources vs. trade for the resources. Authoritarianism vs. Egalitarianism: Grow through top-down authority vs. grow by emphasizing the individuals. Etc.) I'm not sure that materialism vs. spiritualism has quite the same clear distinction here.

I did not touch the Materialist ethic since I figured it is already in a good spot, with bonuses that no other ethic has a "strong claim" to. The contrast between Spiritualist and Materialist would be in the relationship to population growth; Spiritualists promote natural-born pops (+growth) while Materialists promote artificial pops (reduced robot upkeep).

However, I can agree that this is not very accentuated. The Robot Upkeep reduction of Materialist is rather weak and secondary to the Research Speed bonus. It also occurred to me now that the Materialist reduction to robot upkeep is another vestigial bonus, now that several new types of pop assembly have been added. Currently, there is also biological pop assembly, corporate zombie assembly and budding, and more types may be on the way. The Robot Upkeep reduction is specific to just one type of pop assembly, but there is no obvious reason why Materialist should favour mechanical pop assembly over biological pop assembly. The Tyrell/Wallace corporations (replicants) were not noticeably less Materialist than the Weyland-Yutani corporation (synthetics).

A change that could be done to make Materialist more of a contrast to (the new) Spiritualist, while simultaneously updating the Materialist ethic to our Brave New World, could be to replace -10% Robot Upkeep with +10% Pop Assembly Speed. Since this is a rather strong bonus, the Research Speed bonus could be cut in half (+2.5%) to compensate. Finally, rather than completely removing the -10% Robot Upkeep altogether from Materialist, the yet non-existent Materialist-unique edict could offer -20% Robot Upkeep (or Assembled Pop Upkeep). That would be equivalent to the current Fanatic Materialist bonus.

The relationship to pop assembly would be the "front and center" contrast between Materialist and Spiritualist; the most prominent manifestation of their different philosophies. One promotes natural pop growth, the other promotes artificial pop growth. The pop assembly bonus would reflect a Materialist society being more inclined/equipped to rush into the future with less regard for societal and existential consequences. Radical rather than conservative, revolution rather than evolution, material well-being (via hordes of assembled workers) rather than spiritual well-being (even if it is the bat'leth kind of spirituality).

A general bonus to Pop Assembly Speed works for all types of pop assembly, not just robot assembly, thereby modernizing the Materialist ethic. A bonus to pop assembly could previously have been overpowered, as it could have been combined with a Pop Growth bonus from Xenophobe. However, if the Pop Growth bonus is moved to Spiritualist, it could never be combined with a Pop Assembly Speed bonus for Materialist (and vice versa).

Simultaneously, Spiritualist essentially being behind every other ethic in pop assembly speed (as every other ethic can be combined with Materialist) means that there would be no need to have the Traditionalist (Spiritualist) faction advocate outlawing robots. Spiritualists would already be the weakest ethic in the robot game anyway. This would also rhyme better with AI Spiritualist personalities being robot exploiters rather than robot exterminators.

- With egalitarianism, is ethic drift really that big of a deal? My concern is that, in my games I've simply never seen it matter. Admittedly, this is all tied in to the faction system, which is a whole different thing. The answer might be "fix factions." But that aside, idk... I've never really noticed pop ethics matter one way or another in my games.

Not necessarily, and Ethics Shift Chance can be something of a double-edged sword during times of trouble. However, I figured that with the Specialist Output bonus being replaced with a general Job Output bonus, it made sense to not go overboard with the other ethic bonus (although it can still be powerful for quicker integration of new pops).

I also think more active effects ought to be used to further incentivise playing to the ethic rather than just being the ethic.

• E.g. militarists can spend unity on a "war bonds" edict that will award energy credits each time they kill a ship (50% if an ally kills one). Double payout during humiliation wars / vs rivals. To make the most out of that you'd want to fight, and fight often... Ideally vs people weaker than you.

That is an interesting idea. Perhaps a "war bonds" edict could also (or instead) reduce fleet upkeep? Such a bonus would have two pro-militancy gameplay effects, as it would make it cheaper to keep larger fleets AND the bonus would matter more during wars.

• Spiritualists can use a special variation of expel excess population [or maybe espionage] (has anyone -ever ever used that decision? lol) to send their spiritualist pops off as missionaries in to other empires, each time a target empire gains a spiritualist pop, you gain some resources (maybe pop growth to offset haemorrhaging pops).
• Pacifists can spend influence/espionage to increase war exhaustion for other nations. even ones they're not fighting. letting them end wars sooner. every time a war is white peaced out - anywhere in the galaxy, provided they have comms - a pacifist gets some unity.

I think these would be more suited for diplomacy/espionage, which goes beyond the scope of this thread (i.e. immediate effects of ethics).

 

[Pancakelord]

That is an interesting idea. Perhaps a "war bonds" edict could also (or instead) reduce fleet upkeep? Such a bonus would have two pro-militancy gameplay effects, as it would make it cheaper to keep larger fleets AND the bonus would matter more during wars.

so, killing enemies reduces fleet upkeep? that sounds like a very good idea. Raid wars and humiliation wars would be a good way to "power up" and over-expand your fleet, before going on an actual conquest.

 

[Tamwin5]

Excess Amenities DOES have an effect: it increases happiness. It's not by a lot (20% for having double the amenities required by the planet), but it does exist. So no need to adjust that at all.

• Authoritarian: -10% Edict Cost / Upkeep, +5% Stability.
• Egalitarian: +5% Job Output, +50% Ethics Shift Chance.
• Pacifist: +5% Happiness, +10% Trade Value.
• Militarist: +10% Ship Fire Rate, -10% War Exhaustion.
• Xenophile: -25% Diplomatic Influence Cost, +1 Envoy.
• Xenophobe: -10% Claim / -20% Starbase Influence Cost, +10% Monthly Unity.
• Materialist: +5% Research Speed, -10% Robot Upkeep.
• Spiritualist: +10% Pop Growth Speed, +10% Amenities.

• Authoritarian is fine, both bonuses make sense. Personally I think the worker bonus makes sense for them, but I'm not opposed to changing it.
• For Egalitarian, I really don't like the ethics shift chance. Ethics shift is less of a double edged sword, and more of a nothing burger. It just doesn't really have enough impact to be worth it as a bonus, at least in my experience. A Leader bonus like +25% xp gain might be a better fit. I also disagree with your conclusions about factions and egalitarianism. Egalitarians don't necessarily care about allowing in foreign ideologies, that's more xenophile. Egalitarians just want the will of the people to be represented, and so rewarding you for doing that just make sense. Egalitarian groups can often be very xenophobic as well.
• Pacifist needs to be much stronger. The intrinsic restrictions on war means that you can't conquer (not "if you do you make a faction angry" like with spiritualists and robots, you just can't. Hard lock). Happiness also isn't a good ethic bonus imo, as it is far too easy to max it out to 100, and it has less impact than direct stability. Trade value I'm fine with, but I'd boost it up to 20% per level. Reduced sprawl from pops imo made a lot of sense back when you had to build admin offices: disagreements via lawsuit or public opinion fit within laws and rules, and are easier to manage from the government perspective. I'm still fine with it, but mostly from a balance perspective: It's a fairly strong bonus, and helps a tall empire keep ahead of research penalties. A similar but different bonus might be to reduce the cost or scaling of planetary ascension tiers, meaning Pacifists can better internally develop their empires. I will say that Pacifists should never get military bonuses, of any sort. It doesn't make any sense that a militarist would be less willing to defend their borders than a pacifist.
• Militarist is fine, the bonuses make sense.
• Xenophile makes sense as well. Definitely do reduced diplomatic influence cost over bonus influence.
• For Xenophobe, I will note that they actually used to have the reduction to claim cost. This was changed over to militarist because two of the main xenophobe play styles (Inward Perfection and Fanatic Purifiers) have absolutely no use for cheaper claims. So I really don't see this happening. Just having cheaper starbases and monthly unity would be fine though. Personally I think pop growth makes more sense than unity, but it's close enough that I'd be fine either way.
• Materialist is absolutely horrible, how could you ever think these radical changes could ever be good for Stellaris /s
• For Spiritualist I think unity makes sense over pop growth, but again both are applicable so I'm not too concerned over the matter. Realistically speaking spiritualists are actually fine going for robots, all it costs is a measly 5% faction approval. Comparatively, Materialists are more penalized for not doing robots, with a -10% faction approval penalty. So they don't actually need the pop growth. I think the amenity bonus makes sense, however I'd make it -10% amenity usage rather then +10% production. This is slightly stronger (and also mirrors one vision, as well as stacking better), and also serves as a foil to materialists with reduced robot upkeep. You could also go with -10% organic pop upkeep, as a direct mirror of the effect, and which I think would be stronger. Or just do both! "-10% pop upkeep and amenity usage" fits on one line.

 

[Maxwell Tornado]

I just want more RP options. I play authoritarian-materialist, but I wanna be able to pick shared burdens. I don't like nobles and stuff, I just want a strong leader.

 

[Meneye]

Authoritarian: -10% Edict Cost / Upkeep, +5% Stability.

Authoritarian regimes arent inherently more stable. They do place more of a value on stability because it helps to better justify the government's existience and repressive policies, but that doesn't always mean they're actually good at maintaining it. They shouldn't get an outright flat bonus to it.

They react to internal situations much more quickly and have less qualms about trying to control their population, so any modifiers should reflect that instead. The control part is already reflected in their policies. So maybe with the upcoming internal situations/disasters mechanic coming out, authoritarian strengths could relate to them?