How would a fanatic authoritarian, xenophile playthrough work?

[TerrBear]

I have been thinking up new empires for my next playthrough when Utopia comes out, I'm not sure how you could roleplay fanatic authoritarian/xenophiles... You LOVE making aliens slaves? I wonder how all the modifiers would work in that setup.
Any more odd combinations people can think of?? Maybe chuck some odd trait combinations in too.

 

[Caspoi]

Authoritarianism is not about making alien slaves, you have xenophobia for that. It is about a strong state controlled by a select few that may enforce draconian measores for it's own betterment, nothing in that means that you have to treat aliens any worse than anyone else.

 

[Winterwolf00]

"ALL SHALL BE ONE WITH SOVIET SPACE UNION! WE SHALL LIBERATE THE ALIEN WORKERS FROM THEIR LIVES OF EXPLOITATION!"
Also remember that Authoritarians is not going to simply be the 'slavery lovers' that Collectivists were, so the RP will be easier I think.

 

[TerrBear]

Authoritarianism is not about making alien slaves, you have xenophobia for that. It is about a strong state controlled by a select few that may enforce draconian measores for it's own betterment, nothing in that means that you have to treat aliens any worse than anyone else.

But authoritarian would suggest you need force to put them in that position, while xenophile would suggest you wouldn't want to do that as you love the alien

 

[Caspoi]

But authoritarian would suggest you need force to put them in that position, while xenophile would suggest you wouldn't want to do that as you love the alien

Yes, you love the alien... as much as you love your own population. And similarly to authoritarian it is entirely possible for you to be a militarist xenophile who wishes to liberate those poor xenos from their current regime and be put under your loving embrace.

 

[Sheriff Godwin Law]

Come Utopia the only means that Fanatic Authoritarians will have to enslave Xenos will be via the Caste System. Which will only enslave some of the Xenos. And since you're a fanatic authoritarian, is probably also how you treat your own people.

Make your species Authoritarian, Xenophillic, Pacifists and you can have an idyllic feudal society where your farms and mines are worked by land bound serfs and oversaw by a caste of benevolent noblemen. You can use your animal magnetism and courtly manner to attract alien princes and princesses to marry into your royal family's. The rest of the details are left thankfully vague.... but they'll bring to your empire their own court retainers, faithful servants and exotic vegetables and grains. Within a generation your fields will be raising a wide variety of pickles and beer, grown by an even more extravagantly diverse peasant caste.

 

[TerrBear]

Come Utopia the only means that Fanatic Authoritarians will have to enslave Xenos will be via the Caste System. Which will only enslave some of the Xenos. And since you're a fanatic authoritarian, is probably also how you treat your own people.

Make your species Authoritarian, Xenophillic, Pacifists and you can have an idyllic feudal society where your farms and mines are worked by land bound serfs and oversaw by a caste of benevolent noblemen. You can use your animal magnetism and courtly manner to attract alien princes and princesses to marry into your royal family's. The rest of the details are left thankfully vague.... but they'll bring to your empire their own court retainers, faithful servants and exotic vegetables and grains. Within a generation your fields will be raising a wide variety of pickles and beer, grown by an even more extravagantly diverse peasant caste.

In the same sense authoritarian and pacifist doesn't really work together, an authoritarian state requires force to maintain itself which flies in the face of being pacifist.

 

[Caspoi]

In the same sense authoritarian and pacifist doesn't really work together, an authoritarian state requires force to maintain itself which flies in the face of being pacifist.

Actually authoritarianism is mainly about internal politics while pacifism is about external ones so those two definitively work together.

 

[Foefaller]

I think the current Militarist/Collectivist/Xenophile diplo response covers it quite well:

"You will embrace the greater good. Eventually."

I.E. You're basically the Tau, happy to welcome anyone who wants to work together for a better galaxy, as long as they are aware that the way to do that is unquestioning service to the Ethereals State.

 

[TerrBear]

Actually authoritarianism is mainly about internal politics while pacifism is about external ones so those two definitively work together.

authoritarian
ɔːˌθɒrɪˈtɛːrɪən/
adjective

1. 1.
   favouring or enforcing strict obedience to authority at the expense of personal freedom.
   "the transition from an authoritarian to a democratic regime"
   synonyms: autocratic, dictatorial, totalitarian, despotic, tyrannical, autarchic, draconian, absolute, arbitrary, oppressive, repressive, illiberal, undemocratic, anti-democratic;

pacifist
ˈpasɪfɪst/
noun

1. 1.
   a person who believes that war and violence are unjustifiable.
   "she was a committed pacifist all her life"
   synonyms: peace-lover, conscientious objector, passive resister, peacemaker, peace-monger, appeaser, pacifier; More

not seeing the issue here? to be authoritarian requires the use of force to maintain it, pacifist is against the use of force, how can you have a pacifist society which requires force to exist?

 

[Zsrai]

favouring or enforcing strict obedience to authority at the expense of personal freedom.

(emphasis mine)

to be authoritarian requires the use of force to maintain it

The definition that you linked to prove your point actually proves you false. The use of force is not mandatory. It WOULD be mandatory over, say, a Fanatic Egalitarian population that you just "liberated". That would be abstracted by an independence faction or something similar.

People can be willingly autocratic, even on the bottom rung.

 

[Caspoi]

authoritarian
ɔːˌθɒrɪˈtɛːrɪən/
adjective

1. 1.
   favouring or enforcing strict obedience to authority at the expense of personal freedom.
   "the transition from an authoritarian to a democratic regime"
   synonyms: autocratic, dictatorial, totalitarian, despotic, tyrannical, autarchic, draconian, absolute, arbitrary, oppressive, repressive, illiberal, undemocratic, anti-democratic;

pacifist
ˈpasɪfɪst/
noun

1. 1.
   a person who believes that war and violence are unjustifiable.
   "she was a committed pacifist all her life"
   synonyms: peace-lover, conscientious objector, passive resister, peacemaker, peace-monger, appeaser, pacifier; More

not seeing the issue here? to be authoritarian requires the use of force to maintain it, pacifist is against the use of force, how can you have a pacifist society which requires force to exist?

No, I do not. As you have shown authoritarianism is about submission to the state while pacifism is about nonviolence. Neither the first nor the second one actually touches upon "military force", pacifism means that you will not try to fight others and authoritarianism that your citizens are to give everything for the benefit of the state, those are two separate issues.

 

[TerrBear]

No, I do not. As you have shown authoritarianism is about submission to the state while pacifism is about nonviolence. Neither the first nor the second one actually touches upon "military force", pacifism means that you will not try to fight others and authoritarianism that your citizens are to give everything for the benefit of the state, those are two separate issues.

Can you give me any examples of an authoritarian state that doesn't require the use of force to exist?

 

[TerrBear]

(emphasis mine)



The definition that you linked to prove your point actually proves you false. The use of force is not mandatory. It WOULD be mandatory over, say, a Fanatic Egalitarian population that you just "liberated". That would be abstracted by an independence faction or something similar.

People can be willingly autocratic, even on the bottom rung.

No, your race will not be a hivemind, so you will have members of your own race who do not favour being in an authoritarian state, so you will require force to keep them in line which goes against pacifism.

 

[Caspoi]

Can you give me any examples of an authoritarian state that doesn't require the use of force to exist?

The Papal States, at times. Many of the monarchies of old would qualify as due to the fact that conciousness was low the risk of peasant revolts was also quite low, at least as long as they did not missmanage, they still usually kept a military due to their neighbors (the problem here is that there have been relaitvely few states in Earths history that could genuinly be called pacifist).

No, your race will not be a hivemind, so you will have members of your own race who do not favour being in an authoritarian state, so you will require force to keep them in line which goes against pacifism.

Actually the risk of them being many, especially so many that they become a problem, is quite low as long as you don't conquer others (which you wouldn't seeing as you are a pacifist) and at any rate even pacifists are allowed to defend themselves if they are being attacked.

 

[Fourthspartan56]

Can you give me any examples of an authoritarian state that doesn't require the use of force to exist?

It depends on your definition of force, does obey the law or face punishment count? Because that applies to Democracies as-well. So an Authoritarian regime could exist that doesn't use force other than in reasonably enforcing their laws, whether such a state has existed is unknown to me but Stellaris is about possibilities and absolutely seems possible.

 

[Zsrai]

No, your race will not be a hivemind, so you will have members of your own race who do not favour being in an authoritarian state, so you will require force to keep them in line which goes against pacifism.

Considering the fact that the people and the government are Fanatically Authoritarian would leave me to believe that the people themselves aren't violently opposed to the structure of government they are under. They would in fact likely be violently opposed to a chaotic Fanatical Egalitarian state instead. It's not about being mindless drones doing as the Emperor demands, it's about a type of mental state where it's agreeable to be led by your "betters". Go read The Republic and picture Socrates "perfect city" as an example.

 

[TerrBear]

The Papal States, at times. Many of the monarchies of old would qualify as due to the fact that conciousness was low the risk of peasant revolts was also quite low, at least as long as they did not missmanage, they still usually kept a military due to their neighbors (the problem here is that there have been relaitvely few states in Earths history that could genuinly be called pacifist).



Actually the risk of them being many, especially so many that they become a problem, is quite low as long as you don't conquer others (which you wouldn't seeing as you are a pacifist) and at any rate even pacifists are allowed to defend themselves if they are being attacked.

The papal states vote on who is the next pope and i'm not sure how you could call it authoritarian, monarchies have required the use of lords to maintain control of regions that is the use of force they made sure peasant could not go wherever they wanted, marry whoever they wanted and worked the land for the local lord also they couldn't choose to not be a peasant, No feudal state was pacifist towards it's own people.

 

[TerrBear]

Considering the fact that the people and the government are Fanatically Authoritarian would leave me to believe that the people themselves aren't violently opposed to the structure of government they are under. They would in fact likely be violently opposed to a chaotic Fanatical Egalitarian state instead. It's not about being mindless drones doing as the Emperor demands, it's about a type of mental state where it's agreeable to be led by your "betters". Go read The Republic and picture Socrates "perfect city" as an example.

If they're pacifist they can't really be violently opposed to anything, my point is that not everyone will want to be in that state so ultimately it would require the use of force to keep them in it.

For example, you want to leave said authoritarian state or you no longer want to be a peasant it requires the state to use force to keep you in that position which is opposed to pacifism.

 

[Caspoi]

The papal states vote on who is the next pope and i'm not sure how you could call it authoritarian, monarchies have required the use of lords to maintain control of regions that is the use of force they made sure peasant could not go wherever they wanted, marry whoever they wanted and worked the land for the local lord also they couldn't choose to not be a peasant, No feudal state was pacifist towards it's own people.

"The papal states" vote as in the college of cardinals vote, fitting for the dictatorial government authority. The bold part is feudalism specifically and as I said most past states had a military, for obvious enough reasons, even ones that are pacifist today usually need to have some kind of defensive force. The underlined part has nothing to do with pacifism, which is what you are not getting.