Is the Ethos based game system too restrictive?

[Thomas Gideon]

Let me break down for you how this can be done:
Encourage free thought policy.
Make sure you do not have active buildings that encourage unity.
Wait for a faction that has the ethics you desire to pop up.
OPTIONAL - Check them out in the faction's screen, to see what you can do to increase their attraction to your population and overall happiness.
Select Manage the faction, and select Embrace faction.

Seriously, you chose Fanatic Militarist for the combat bonus, Spiritualist for the governing ethics attraction bonus (and perhaps psionics), and Imperial rule under the assumption that it gave you carte blanche in what you can do. You complain about power gaming, but judging by your picks that is EXACTLY what you where doing.

Ethics and government are RELATED in this instance. The ETHICS represent how your GOVERNMENT behave, just as your CIVICS does. In this case, it is the guiding framework of how your emperor decrees, and the history they uphold while they are on the throne. Your empire places martial prowess above all others, with being spiritualism the second most important thing in people's lives and history. If you want to change the cultural basis of your empire to embrace exclusivity as one if its priorities, then you have to evolve it to that place.

I think the confusion here is that you feel you are roleplaying the emperor. You are not. You are roleplaying the EMPIRE as a whole. The emperor is just an aspect of that empire.

 

[Kamakaze Panda]

Currently the Ethos of your species decides a lot of mechanics in the game. Based on ethos you either can or can't enact policies (most notably purging and slavery) and also the new political factions are ethos based.

This works if you "powergame" so to speak and pick you starting ethos based on a specific strategy.
But if you pick your ethos based on roleplay it gets difficult. You have to comprimise to get access to the policies you want or have trouble pleasing political parties as your playstyle is not reflected by any single ethos and this you hardly get a party >60% happiness.

I do not want to make ethos less important. In fact I am all for it that every ethos gets a speciality like spiritualists get with psionics. But for things like policies I would want a more fluid system where neigbouring ethoses can also access the policies although at the cost of unrest and ethos drift.
As for political parties imo there should also be hybrid parties between two neigbouring ethos.

That would allow you to play more freely in Stellaris without having to preplan everything at game start. Some people might say that this is not the "correct" way to play but I think given all the customization option and open ended gameplay it should also be supported.

I find Utopia has given us a more broad set of options in this regard, civics are of course ethics based, but its adds an additional layer on top of your ethic picks, traditions and ascension perks also futher let you tweak your empire into what it actual is, and these, apart from a few ascensions are not ethics dependent. You can have a pacifist empire, with supremacy or domination traditions, or a fanatic militarist or xenophobic empire which embraces harmony ideas.

All of this does help to make your own civilisation feel a bit more fleshed out and gives you more variety. At least that's my take. In fact this is the first time I've really started playing a variety of different empire builds and switching around ethics during the game, rather than sticking to a purge all the things empire.

 

[Frederick III]

I don't want to purge, that's not it.
I want to mark some people as undesirables, that's not purging.
I feel restricting pop acces to your empire should be dicated by your government type, not ethics. It would make more sense

Fine, change "purge" for "expel" and read the post again, it makes literally no difference.

And no, it really wouldn't.

 

[krios41]

Fine, change "purge" for "expel" and read the post again, it makes literally no difference.

Let's try it different.
Currently, if you're not authoritarian/xenophobe or Egalitarian/Xenophile you have no real foreign policy.

Infact, i think Authoritarian and Egalitarian should be removed altogether. they tie you to a certain government type anyway.

 

[Frederick III]

Let's try it different.
Currently, if you're not authoritarian/xenophobe or Egalitarian/Xenophile you have no real foreign policy.

Infact, i think Authoritarian and Egalitarian should be removed altogether. they tie you to a certain government type anyway.

You can have an authoritarian democracy and an egalitarian dictatorship. Tyranny of the majority, benevolent dictator.

 

[Horror In The Deep]

Can you provide an example of how ethos restrains role-playing?

OK, I Can`t say I am 100% agree with topicstarter, but I personally have an example of ethos system restraining role-play in a very frustrating way.
As you might already guess, It`s about robots.

You see, I got a very special empire Idea for an Utopia. The one, wish to play very, very much. It was Empire, blid by Egalitarian, Xenophile, Spiritualist near-human species. And it was about enlighting, uplifting and creating robots. Year, "creating", not just building. They want to bring synthetic beings to live, educate them and made they their equals. And the want this BECAUSE they were Spiritualists
It is the core, the Foundation of their Faith: to create sentient live ex nihilo ("from nothing") just like their God created them. I is their spiritual goal, their magnus opus ("great work"), their path of becoming like gods.
BEFORE 1.5 it could be played... sort of. Spiritualists had a really strong malus on researching robotic technologies, and a strong happiness penalty, if they give Synths citizen rights. This would be weird for my species, but I could handle It.

And when comes the Utopia. Which is really great, I agree! But... Spiritualist MUST have AI prohibited. They don`t even get robotic tech at all.
"OK" - I said to myself - "Than... I could take something else, like Fanatic Egalitarian... And just role-play that they are religious!"
No. I can`t. Because I have to take materialism to give AI citizen rights.
So, to roleplay what I want, I have to take Materialism. That is exactly the opposite of what my species concept is about

If this is not a "restraining of role-play", than i don`t no what is

 

[krios41]

You can have an authoritarian democracy and an egalitarian dictatorship. Tyranny of the majority, benevolent dictator.

Shall we just agree to disagree?
I am unable to convicne you and you are unable to convince me

 

[MathewPerth]

Although I disagree with everythign else, I do think displacing pops should instead be disabled by being xenophile, instead of being enabled with authoritarian/xenophobe. When you conquer new planets, you shouldnt have to cater for the citizens of your enemy.

 

[Frederick III]

N

OK, I Can`t say I am 100% agree with topicstarter, but I personally have an example of ethos system restraining role-play in a very frustrating way.
As you might already guess, It`s about robots.

You see, I got a very special empire Idea for an Utopia. The one, wish to play very, very much. It was Empire, blid by Egalitarian, Xenophile, Spiritualist near-human species. And it was about enlighting, uplifting and creating robots. Year, "creating", not just building. They want to bring synthetic beings to live, educate them and made they their equals. And the want this BECAUSE they were Spiritualists
It is the core, the Foundation of their Faith: to create sentient live ex nihilo ("from nothing") just like their God created them. I is their spiritual goal, their magnus opus ("great work"), their path of becoming like gods.
BEFORE 1.5 it could be played... sort of. Spiritualists had a really strong malus on researching robotic technologies, and a strong happiness penalty, if they give Synths citizen rights. This would be weird for my species, but I could handle It.

And when comes the Utopia. Which is really great, I agree! But... Spiritualist MUST have AI prohibited. They don`t even get robotic tech at all.
"OK" - I said to myself - "Than... I could take something else, like Fanatic Egalitarian... And just role-play that they are religious!"
No. I can`t. Because I have to take materialism to give AI citizen rights.
So, to roleplay what I want, I have to take Materialism. That is exactly the opposite of what my species concept is about

If this is not a "restraining of role-play", than i don`t no what is

Now this I agree with. I've never liked the materialist/spiritualist axis as it's constituted.

 

[Frederick III]

Shall we just agree to disagree?
I am unable to convicne you and you are unable to convince me

You haven't even made an argument other than it shouldn't be this way.

 

[krios41]

You haven't even made an argument other than it shouldn't be this way.

I have made my arguments, you're just not seeing them as valid. (wich is fine)

, I do think displacing pops should instead be disabled by being xenophile, instead of being enabled with authoritarian/xenophobe. When you conquer new planets, you shouldnt have to cater for the citizens of your enemy.

I should've said this from the start.
So Fredrick, see this as an argument i could've used (but for some reason didn't).

 

[Frederick III]

Although I disagree with everythign else, I do think displacing pops should instead be disabled by being xenophile, instead of being enabled with authoritarian/xenophobe. When you conquer new planets, you shouldnt have to cater for the citizens of your enemy.

Think about what expulsion of a population actually means. It means you're encouraging your entire society to actively discriminate against a specific population which is technically under the control of your government. You need to create discriminatory policies, convince average people to refuse to shop in their stores or refuse to serve them. You need to convince people to harass them, to go out in posses and assault them. Even to kill them. All to convince their population at large that they're better off embracing the uncertainty of refugee status rather than remain in your empire.

This is not something a non-authoritarian/non-xenophobic population does. Just as embracing them, bringing them into your homes and making them your friends and celebrating differences is not something a non-xenophile population does.

Purging and expulsion both should require either authoritarianism or xenophobia.

 

[OneHeadedHydra]

The thing that bugs me is the fact that you -must- have Materialism to give your Synths full Citizen Rights. The problem is that, since both the xenophile and egalitarian (My main ethos) faction are ticked off that I have "slaves" and "restricted movement" because of this.

So I need to work the materialism faction into my game somehow if I wish to keep my synths and keep everyone happy?

 

[Deep Space Explorer]

Think about what expulsion of a population actually means. It means you're encouraging your entire society to actively discriminate against a specific population which is technically under the control of your government. You need to create discriminatory policies, convince average people to refuse to shop in their stores or refuse to serve them. You need to convince people to harass them, to go out in posses and assault them. Even to kill them. All to convince their population at large that they're better off embracing the uncertainty of refugee status rather than remain in your empire.

This is not something a non-authoritarian/non-xenophobic population does. Just as embracing them, bringing them into your homes and making them your friends and celebrating differences is not something a non-xenophile population does.

Purging and expulsion both should require either authoritarianism or xenophobia.

What if they're your enemy? Just a month ago they've bombarded your planets killing thousands of civilians. I don't think your society will need much encouragement.

If i'm spiritualist why can't i expel or eradicate heathens? Is holy war not a thing anymore?
If i'm dictator with absolute power why can't i purge? Who will stop me? And it's not xenophobic if these pops are constantly unhappy and create unrest. It's pragmatic. At best i can try to displace them which is kinda useless.

I think displacement should be available to everyone, except for xenophiles. And purge should be available to xenophobes, authoritarians and militarists (except for processing).

 

[Secret Master]

But if you pick your ethos based on roleplay it gets difficult. You have to comprimise to get access to the policies you want or have trouble pleasing political parties as your playstyle is not reflected by any single ethos and this you hardly get a party >60% happiness.

So, just like real life, then.

Even dictatorships and absolute monarchies in Earth's history have had situations where leaders have to appease multiple parties and groups to try and get policies enacted.

If you want to enact a policy that is restricted by your ethos, then just change your ethos. Historical governments have done it all the time.

 

[Frederick III]

What if they're your enemy? Just a month ago they've bombarded your planets killing thousands of civilians. I don't think your society will need much encouragement.

If i'm spiritualist why can't i expel or eradicate heathens? Is holy war not a thing anymore?
If i'm dictator with absolute power why can't i purge? Who will stop me? And it's not xenophobic if these pops are constantly unhappy and create unrest. It's pragmatic. At best i can try to displace them which is kinda useless.

I think displacement should be available to everyone, except for xenophiles. And purge should be available to xenophobes, authoritarians and militarists (except for processing).

So what? They're your enemy, but that doesn't mean your civilization wants to eradicate and kill them all. If that's what you want to be doing, play as a fanatic purifier. Even the bloodiest, most vicious wars in human history tend not to end with total annihilation of one side - and when they have, we look back and think of the perpetrator as Authoritarian/Xenophobic.

You're not playing a dictator with absolute power, you're playing a limited dictator - unless you're playing a Hive Mind or an Authoritarian leader with a fanatic Authoritarian ethic. Dictators are always restrained by some forces, just ask Louis.

It might be pragmatic but that doesn't make it any less xenophobic. States don't always do the pragmatic thing, because the pragmatic thing isn't always seen as popularly acceptable.

To me it sounds like you want for gameplay reasons the ability to conquer planets, get rid of their populations, and to have this ability without needing to make any compromises in your gameplay style in other ways.

 

[Deep Space Explorer]

So what? They're your enemy, but that doesn't mean your civilization wants to eradicate and kill them all. If that's what you want to be doing, play as a fanatic purifier. Even the bloodiest, most vicious wars in human history tend not to end with total annihilation of one side - and when they have, we look back and think of the perpetrator as Authoritarian/Xenophobic.

Doesn't mean they want to hug them and be friends either. There's difference between a war among human states, and a war with alien fanatic purifier that treats humans as livestock.
"Hello, conquered fanatic purifiers! We're not authoritarian so you'll going to live with us now. What is your diet? Human flesh? Oh well, i'll start asking for volunteers."

You're not playing a dictator with absolute power, you're playing a limited dictator - unless you're playing a Hive Mind or an Authoritarian leader with a fanatic Authoritarian ethic. Dictators are always restrained by some forces, just ask Louis.

Even if my ruler is worshiped like god?
Limitations come in different forms. If my people will get upset and i'll have to deal with unrest or other consequences, i'm fine with it. But simply not being able to do it?

To me it sounds like you want for gameplay reasons the ability to conquer planets, get rid of their populations, and to have this ability without needing to make any compromises in your gameplay style in other ways.

What i want is not to be forced to take xenophobic ethos on each playthrough.

And you're already getting a huge penalty to relations. If you cleanse one planet everyone and their dog is going to hate you for the rest of the game. Is it not enough of a compromise?

 

[TempusxX]

it is not restrictive at all, you can use factions to change the ethos you have to something else all you got to do is wait for a faction to appear and see if it has the ethos that you want then choose the option to embrace it and your ethos will change and you can do this at any time when the factions show up

 

[Kanaric]

This is a 4x strategy game not a Morrowind, so game mechanics are more important than allowing people to "RP" power game.

 

[Endless Rain]

The problem with these ethos restrictions is that you only get three ethos points, and cannot get more even if you embrace factions.

An Egalitarian/Pacifist/Xenophile empire doesn't have enough ethos points for the materialist/spiritualist scale, and thus cannot gain psi abilities or give rights to robots. A Fanatical Purifier cannot get enough ethos points to get any ethics on the egalitarian/authoritarian scale or the materialist/spiritualist scale, preventing them from getting any of the options available to those ethics.

I would be fine with most of these ethos restrictions, save for the Psi/Robot related ones, if you could actually get more ethics through embracing factions without being brought back down to three ethos points.