This is a pretty long read, almost an article. I explain how Stellaris version of Pacifism doesn’t work, why it is like that and what can be done about it. For your convenience, I broke it in several parts.
Part 1: What's wrong with Pacifism?
Part 2: Why current Pacifism doesn't work as an ethic?
Part 3: Solutions
Hopefully that was a good read. I am interested in what you think!
Part 1: What's wrong with Pacifism?
Of the eight ethics in Stellaris, Pacifism is by far the least functional. This is true both for mechanics of the game and roleplay experience.
In terms of mechanics, other seven ethics are more beneficial. Some are slightly better, some are worse, but, overall, each ethic offers some advantage. Xenophobia has early rush benefits. Xenophilia focuses on diplomacy. Materialism benefits tech rush. Spiritualism helps with unity production. Authoritarianism gets more base resources. Egalitarianism has stronger advanced economy. Militarism offers advantages in war. Each ethic offers something tangible and forms a distinctive playstyle.
Then there is Pacifism, a laughing stock of the eight. Extra stability is nice to have, but hardly the game changer as the stability is rarely a problem. If pressed you can raise it anyway with the abundant sources of extra happiness. -15% and -30% malus from the population size is a better thing to have, but the benefits are not that impressive. The benefits only kick in once you pass the administrative cap and the efficiency of the bonus depends on the border situation. If you are small and have a smaller population, you don’t get as much as you would get if you were large.
Of course, the crippling disadvantage of Pacifism is inability to wage war and expand as quickly as anyone else. Regular Pacifists can conquer in a masochistic busy-work cycle of liberation, vassalization and integration. Fanatic Pacifists can’t do even that. You either have to look for diplomatic solutions that may not be available in certain Galaxies, or you need to change ethics ASAP. Sure, some players may say that ethic change is a natural way to deal with this situation. Yet, when it comes to switching ethics, Pacifism seems to be the one changed the most. How many times have you switched from Militarism?
This is an additional point to consider. Counterpart ethics like Authoritarianism and Egalitarianism are more or less balanced against each other. It is not a perfect balance in each case, but it works more or less. As for Militarism and Pacifism, there is double imbalance in Militarism’s favor. Militarists not only can wage war while Pacifists can’t, but Militarists are also much better at war. They enjoy benefits of fire rate, naval capacity and so on. Pacifists, on the other hand, experience high war exhaustion. It is a logical outcome, of course, but since Pacifism has zero counterplay it may as well be removed from the game.
In terms of mechanics, other seven ethics are more beneficial. Some are slightly better, some are worse, but, overall, each ethic offers some advantage. Xenophobia has early rush benefits. Xenophilia focuses on diplomacy. Materialism benefits tech rush. Spiritualism helps with unity production. Authoritarianism gets more base resources. Egalitarianism has stronger advanced economy. Militarism offers advantages in war. Each ethic offers something tangible and forms a distinctive playstyle.
Then there is Pacifism, a laughing stock of the eight. Extra stability is nice to have, but hardly the game changer as the stability is rarely a problem. If pressed you can raise it anyway with the abundant sources of extra happiness. -15% and -30% malus from the population size is a better thing to have, but the benefits are not that impressive. The benefits only kick in once you pass the administrative cap and the efficiency of the bonus depends on the border situation. If you are small and have a smaller population, you don’t get as much as you would get if you were large.
Of course, the crippling disadvantage of Pacifism is inability to wage war and expand as quickly as anyone else. Regular Pacifists can conquer in a masochistic busy-work cycle of liberation, vassalization and integration. Fanatic Pacifists can’t do even that. You either have to look for diplomatic solutions that may not be available in certain Galaxies, or you need to change ethics ASAP. Sure, some players may say that ethic change is a natural way to deal with this situation. Yet, when it comes to switching ethics, Pacifism seems to be the one changed the most. How many times have you switched from Militarism?
This is an additional point to consider. Counterpart ethics like Authoritarianism and Egalitarianism are more or less balanced against each other. It is not a perfect balance in each case, but it works more or less. As for Militarism and Pacifism, there is double imbalance in Militarism’s favor. Militarists not only can wage war while Pacifists can’t, but Militarists are also much better at war. They enjoy benefits of fire rate, naval capacity and so on. Pacifists, on the other hand, experience high war exhaustion. It is a logical outcome, of course, but since Pacifism has zero counterplay it may as well be removed from the game.
As for roleplay experience, Pacifism doesn’t do much better. Other ethics have clear identities and it is clear what they are about. There are special events, buildings, flavor text and many other little details giving an impression of playing particular ethic. By mid-game you can usually see what you are playing: Xenophobes have no alien specialists and rulers, Authoritarians have vast slaver networks, Materialists have lots of droids and so on. Pacifists have nothing. They are aggressively (ha-ha) average in how they feel. The only unique and fun mechanic they have is pacification of some space fauna, not even all of it.
Ethic description and government type indicate some sort of “Moral” like “Moral Democracy”, but there is no sense of superior morality to Pacifists. They may be generally non-violent, but it doesn’t feel like Pacifists do anything for moral reasons. If anything, they just come off as lazy hypocritical cowards, especially if they are on the slaving/purging side. Then there is the “Prosperity” angle in faction name, even though the economy or living standards advantages of the Pacifism are minor at best. Meaning there is no real identity to Stellaris Pacifism because it is too vague to describe.
A small, but telling example of how Pacifism is broken: when Paradox wanted to give some small flavor benefits to culture workers based on ethics, they had no problem choosing benefits for seven ethics and the problematic one was Pacifism. At first they wanted to give it the crime reduction and later changed it to small amount of trade value. Both choices are generic and not particularly valuable, just like Pacifism itself.
Ethic description and government type indicate some sort of “Moral” like “Moral Democracy”, but there is no sense of superior morality to Pacifists. They may be generally non-violent, but it doesn’t feel like Pacifists do anything for moral reasons. If anything, they just come off as lazy hypocritical cowards, especially if they are on the slaving/purging side. Then there is the “Prosperity” angle in faction name, even though the economy or living standards advantages of the Pacifism are minor at best. Meaning there is no real identity to Stellaris Pacifism because it is too vague to describe.
A small, but telling example of how Pacifism is broken: when Paradox wanted to give some small flavor benefits to culture workers based on ethics, they had no problem choosing benefits for seven ethics and the problematic one was Pacifism. At first they wanted to give it the crime reduction and later changed it to small amount of trade value. Both choices are generic and not particularly valuable, just like Pacifism itself.
So, in conclusion, Pacifism is just a chewing toy among the ethics. Its mechanical benefits are either worthless or contextual. Its mechanical disadvantages are crippling. Its roleplay identity is both bland and vague. It doesn’t offer much to play with.
Part 2: Why current Pacifism doesn't work as an ethic?
The main reason Pacifism is so dysfunctional is because it opposes the core of the game loop. While Stellaris is not as much a map painter as EU4 or HoI4, in many ways it still follows the 4X war-driven formula. Rapid wide expansion is what the game expects a player to do, and war is the most efficient tool to achieve that goal. On top of that, warfare is often considered the most fun and rewarding part of gameplay, so the game naturally tilts in that direction.
In that sense Pacifism as an ethic is pretty much a refusal to play the game as intended. This naturally leads to a lot of problems for anyone sticking with Pacifism throughout a game. Both its mechanics and roleplay experience are based on negative (non-expansion, non-violence, non-identity), so it leads mostly to negative results.
If Stellaris was more like Vic3, Pacifism could find a refuge in the economy and social aspects of the game, but sadly that’s not the case. Stellaris doesn’t have a deep internal political system or a cultural system for Pacifism to tap into. At the same time, what little there is in terms of politics and culture, is already exploited by seven other ethics. They influence the nature of economy, the social system, the cultural flavor. Pacifism has nothing to do but to say “well, we are kind of stable, though”.
In that sense Pacifism as an ethic is pretty much a refusal to play the game as intended. This naturally leads to a lot of problems for anyone sticking with Pacifism throughout a game. Both its mechanics and roleplay experience are based on negative (non-expansion, non-violence, non-identity), so it leads mostly to negative results.
If Stellaris was more like Vic3, Pacifism could find a refuge in the economy and social aspects of the game, but sadly that’s not the case. Stellaris doesn’t have a deep internal political system or a cultural system for Pacifism to tap into. At the same time, what little there is in terms of politics and culture, is already exploited by seven other ethics. They influence the nature of economy, the social system, the cultural flavor. Pacifism has nothing to do but to say “well, we are kind of stable, though”.
Part 3: Solutions
The problems with the current version of Pacifism are clear, but it’s not clear what should be done about it. Hopefully in this thread we can develop some ideas. All of the following are my personal suggestions:
The starting point for improving Pacifism is to give it a clear identity. Currently it is the negative identity, the absence of Militarism and the absence of meaningful gameplay. Instead, it should have positive and proactive identity.
The idea I have is the ethic of “building up”.
Pacifists should be the people who use their hard work and ingenuity to construct something from nothing. They turn barren rocks into thriving economies, they turn wastelands into blooming ecosystems, they develop institutions, megacities, megastructures. While Militarists take something by force, Pacifists are the ones building things that may be taken. This ethic of development gives them a natural respect for life and a natural proclivity for a softer approach.
This means Pacifists would have more to do aside from being non-Militarists. Instead, Pacifists would strive to build a Galaxy with more places to live, better places to live, healthy ecosystems, abundant resources and robust economies. At the same time, they would try to avoid warfare if possible. In my opinion, this change makes Pacifism more interesting, more in-tune with existing Stellaris game loop and more cohesive with other six ethics.
The starting point for improving Pacifism is to give it a clear identity. Currently it is the negative identity, the absence of Militarism and the absence of meaningful gameplay. Instead, it should have positive and proactive identity.
The idea I have is the ethic of “building up”.
Pacifists should be the people who use their hard work and ingenuity to construct something from nothing. They turn barren rocks into thriving economies, they turn wastelands into blooming ecosystems, they develop institutions, megacities, megastructures. While Militarists take something by force, Pacifists are the ones building things that may be taken. This ethic of development gives them a natural respect for life and a natural proclivity for a softer approach.
This means Pacifists would have more to do aside from being non-Militarists. Instead, Pacifists would strive to build a Galaxy with more places to live, better places to live, healthy ecosystems, abundant resources and robust economies. At the same time, they would try to avoid warfare if possible. In my opinion, this change makes Pacifism more interesting, more in-tune with existing Stellaris game loop and more cohesive with other six ethics.
The next point is to translate the idea into mechanics. That’s a harder thing, but anyway:
1. If Stellaris gets better internal politics with more focus on stability, then Pacifists should keep that bonus. While Militarists may conquer a bunch of planets, they should have a hard time keeping those planets in line. Separatism, crime and inefficiency should be things to worry about. Pacifists would develop more stable and economically efficient societies, deal with less problems and get more resources, including alloys to build defense fleets.
2. If Stellaris gets cultural mechanics, Pacifists should also be the prime beneficiary. Pacifists should have an option to use their vast resources as the “soft power” abroad. Maybe this should be a new way of using diplomacy and espionage, available to everyone, but Pacifists would be better at it. Like slowly influencing the Militarist neighbor to get more and more tame, forcing an ethic switch and forming a Federation.
3. Add more Pacifist flavor to existing mechanics. Let Pacifists pacify and benefit from all space fauna. Give them an option to peacefully resolve conflicts with non-standard entities like leviathans and the like.
4. The key problem for Pacifism in terms of gameplay is limited expansion. While Militarists can claw their way out of a tough spot, Pacifists sometimes just can’t do that. Fanatical Pacifists are in a really tough spot if there are no friendly neighbors around. So, let Pacifists have a chance to prospect, terraform and settle some uninhabitable planets early in the game. Those planets would function like habitats, small and unassuming, but would provide the extra resources required for growing in a tight space and remaining competitive against Militarist expansion. Balancing that would be quite hard, though. The immediate problem is someone settling a bunch of planets and then ethic changing to Militarism, for example. Yet, I think this idea may be investigated.
5. Add Pacifist-specific civics. Currently there are only two Pacifist civics (Agrarian Idyll and Inward Perfection) while there are eight Militarist ones. Those new Pacifist civics may be related to the “building up” idea: resource extraction, terraforming, space engineering, maybe additional districts and better production methods. Also there may be civics related to the “soft power” allowing benefits for swaying ethics of other nations.
1. If Stellaris gets better internal politics with more focus on stability, then Pacifists should keep that bonus. While Militarists may conquer a bunch of planets, they should have a hard time keeping those planets in line. Separatism, crime and inefficiency should be things to worry about. Pacifists would develop more stable and economically efficient societies, deal with less problems and get more resources, including alloys to build defense fleets.
2. If Stellaris gets cultural mechanics, Pacifists should also be the prime beneficiary. Pacifists should have an option to use their vast resources as the “soft power” abroad. Maybe this should be a new way of using diplomacy and espionage, available to everyone, but Pacifists would be better at it. Like slowly influencing the Militarist neighbor to get more and more tame, forcing an ethic switch and forming a Federation.
3. Add more Pacifist flavor to existing mechanics. Let Pacifists pacify and benefit from all space fauna. Give them an option to peacefully resolve conflicts with non-standard entities like leviathans and the like.
4. The key problem for Pacifism in terms of gameplay is limited expansion. While Militarists can claw their way out of a tough spot, Pacifists sometimes just can’t do that. Fanatical Pacifists are in a really tough spot if there are no friendly neighbors around. So, let Pacifists have a chance to prospect, terraform and settle some uninhabitable planets early in the game. Those planets would function like habitats, small and unassuming, but would provide the extra resources required for growing in a tight space and remaining competitive against Militarist expansion. Balancing that would be quite hard, though. The immediate problem is someone settling a bunch of planets and then ethic changing to Militarism, for example. Yet, I think this idea may be investigated.
5. Add Pacifist-specific civics. Currently there are only two Pacifist civics (Agrarian Idyll and Inward Perfection) while there are eight Militarist ones. Those new Pacifist civics may be related to the “building up” idea: resource extraction, terraforming, space engineering, maybe additional districts and better production methods. Also there may be civics related to the “soft power” allowing benefits for swaying ethics of other nations.
Hopefully that was a good read. I am interested in what you think!
Last edited:
- 42
- 11
- 7
- 1
.png){kind=avatar}
.png){kind=avatar}
