Pop Ethics Rework in 1.5 - Concerned about one of Wiz's statements

[WMJ]

Here's the Wiz's quote:

Each pop in your empire will now only embrace a single, non-fanatic ethic. At the start of the game, your population will be made of up of only the ethics that you picked in species setup, but as your empire grows, its population will become more diverse in their views and wants.

Each ethic now has an attraction value for each pop in your empire depending on both the empire's situation and their own situation. For example, enslaved pops tend to become more egalitarian, while pops living around non-enslaved aliens become more xenophilic (and pops living around enslaved aliens more xenophobic). Conversely, fighting a lot of wars will increase the attraction for militarism across your entire empire, while an alien empire purging pops of a particular species will massively increase the attraction for xenophobic for the species being purged.

The above comes from: https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/index.php?threads/stellaris-dev-diary-54-ethics-rework.987286/

In real life it dosn't work this way.

As a matter of fact, people's beliefs and ideology does change the opposite and is often counter intuitive. Wiz - if you're reading this, If you're going to implement it the way you're describing it - it's not going to make sense and it's going to be an oversimplification.

I think when it comes to Militarism vs Pacifism & Xenophobia vs Xenophilia it ought to be implemented the following way:


Militarism vs Pacifism - in real life:


In real life you've got a rise in militarism if:

+ You have a militarist / authorian government in power that's spitting out pro-war propaganda AND
+ Your country is winning

OR

+ Your contry has been attacked by a foreign power - and you're on the defense.



You have a rise in pacifism if:

+ You have a democratic government AND your country is fighting an offensive war

OR

+ You have an authoritarian government AND your country is loosing

OR/AND

++ You're suffering very large casualties



IRL Examples:

WW 1 - the French pacifism after sufferning huge casualties during WW 1
WW 2 - the initial support for the war among Germans that wanned after 1943
War in Vietnam / War in Iraq.. - support and social attitudes towards war in the US

ect.



Xenophobia vs Xenophilia - in real life:

In real life there is an increase in xenophobia if:

+ You have a militarist / authorian government in power that's spitting xenophobic propaganda.

OR

+ You have alien pops living freely among your population AND those alien pops have a radically different set of values than your population (this can turn a xenophile into a xenophobe)


In real life there is an increase in xenophilia if:

+ You have a democratic government AND you have legalized slavery


OR

+ You have alien pops living freely among your population AND those alien pops have a similar set of values as your population (this can turn a xenophobe into a xenophile)


IRL Examples:

Situation in Germany during the 1930s
American anti-slavery movement
Current situation in some of the European countries

 

[faljen_isus]

dev is god
devs word is law
dev knows best

 

[gdj]

No, just no. Especially the xenophobe/xenophile analysis here is inaccurate. All relevant data show clearly that xenophobic tendencies are higher when a) there is virtually no contact at all with the targeted group or b) the targeted group is so large and visible that it is perceived as "invading". Consequently small groups of xenos living freely in your surroundings are more likely to cause xenophilia, while large (or: nonexistent) groups are more likely to lead to xenophobia. The given set of values by said group does not seem to be a deciding factor, thus Wiz's original concept mirrors reality somewhat better.

I also find it quite dangerous to believe that democracies are less prone to these tendencies. In fact, the contrary may be true as well (more public responsibility = more need for scapegoating a group that has little power/does not vote).

 

[smjjames]

But that's Humans we are talking about, it might play out differently with aliens with different thinking proccesses. And of course real life is much, much more complicated than the way that the devs are doing it, which is why it's simplified and abstracted somewhat.

 

[gdj]

But that's Humans we are talking about, it might play out differently with aliens with different thinking proccesses. And of course real life is much, much more complicated than the way that the devs are doing it, which is why it's simplified and abstracted somewhat.

Well, we have to have some reference point for modelling, human intelleigence is the only one we know (yet). Although ther are some people whoa actually talk to plants...

But yes, it is speculative when we talk about a sci fi setting.

 

[Agamemnic]

Here's the Wiz's quote:



The above comes from: https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/index.php?threads/stellaris-dev-diary-54-ethics-rework.987286/

In real life it dosn't work this way.

As a matter of fact, people's beliefs and ideology does change the opposite and is often counter intuitive. Wiz - if you're reading this, If you're going to implement it the way you're describing it - it's not going to make sense and it's going to be an oversimplification.

I think when it comes to Militarism vs Pacifism & Xenophobia vs Xenophilia it ought to be implemented the following way:


Militarism vs Pacifism - in real life:


In real life you've got a rise in militarism if:

+ You have a militarist / authorian government in power that's spitting out pro-war propaganda AND
+ Your country is winning

OR

+ Your contry has been attacked by a foreign power - and you're on the defense.



You have a rise in pacifism if:

+ You have a democratic government AND your country is fighting an offensive war

OR

+ You have an authoritarian government AND your country is loosing

OR/AND

++ You're suffering very large casualties



IRL Examples:

WW 1 - the French pacifism after sufferning huge casualties during WW 1
WW 2 - the initial support for the war among Germans that wanned after 1943
War in Vietnam / War in Iraq.. - support and social attitudes towards war in the US

ect.



Xenophobia vs Xenophilia - in real life:

In real life there is an increase in xenophobia if:

+ You have a militarist / authorian government in power that's spitting xenophobic propaganda.

OR

+ You have alien pops living freely among your population AND those alien pops have a radically different set of values than your population (this can turn a xenophile into a xenophobe)


In real life there is an increase in xenophilia if:

+ You have a democratic government AND you have legalized slavery


OR

+ You have alien pops living freely among your population AND those alien pops have a similar set of values as your population (this can turn a xenophobe into a xenophile)


IRL Examples:

Situation in Germany during the 1930s
American anti-slavery movement
Current situation in some of the European countries

Using your example, playing a militaristic empire would result in your pops becoming pacifists. This may make sense in your IRL-inspired suggestions but it would not work at all in this game:

e.g. If I want to play space Gandhi and the game responds by making my empire space Nazis then that's rather silly no?

Secondly, IRL, some of the most open and "xenophile" societies on this planet tend to be the most culturally diverse as well. In many respects, you're more likely to experience xenophobic sentiments from homogeneous societies than multicultural ones. Forgive me for straying into politics but my point is that your IRL examples have holes.

 

[Tyrannical Prince]

No, just no. Especially the xenophobe/xenophile analysis here is inaccurate. All relevant data show clearly that xenophobic tendencies are higher when a) there is virtually no contact at all with the targeted group or b) the targeted group is so large and visible that it is perceived as "invading". Consequently small groups of xenos living freely in your surroundings are more likely to cause xenophilia, while large (or: nonexistent) groups are more likely to lead to xenophobia. The given set of values by said group does not seem to be a deciding factor, thus Wiz's original concept mirrors reality somewhat better.

I also find it quite dangerous to believe that democracies are less prone to these tendencies. In fact, the contrary may be true as well (more public responsibility = more need for scapegoating a group that has little power/does not vote).

Hmm? That's not true. Ethnically/Religious/Racially diverse areas always have more conflict.

 

[LastLeviathan]

Hmm? That's not true. Ethnically/Religious/Racially diverse areas always have more conflict.

That's an oversimplification and false. Canada, the US and some of Europe are good examples of racially, ethnically and religious diversity with little to no conflict.

As for the OP, I personally like the way wiz is doing it and find your comparisons lacking. Democracy has less of a tendency for militarism? Where did you get that? History proves otherwise. Many of these ethics arise from culture and geopolitical situation such as threats and events, not government type.

 

[Agamemnic]

Using your example, playing a militaristic empire would result in your pops becoming pacifists. This may make sense in your IRL-inspired suggestions but it would not work at all in this game:

e.g. If I want to play space Gandhi and the game responds by making my empire space Nazis then that's rather silly no?

Secondly, IRL, some of the most open and "xenophile" societies on this planet tend to be the most culturally diverse as well. In many respects, you're more likely to experience xenophobic sentiments from homogeneous societies than multicultural ones. Forgive me for straying into politics but my point is that your IRL examples have holes.

Just to qualify my statement, I'm not saying all homogeneous societies are xenophobic or evil. Apologies if it came off that way. If I recall my social studies classes correctly, it's that homogeneous societies are more easily able to develop hostile or stereotypical views of outsiders because such views are never challenged...since no outsiders exist to challenge them. Something like that

 

[faljen_isus]

snip

this is completely incorrect, and i stand by it on an empirical basis
i live in an extremely multicultural environment and when you see "xenos" do the very same things that are topic of stereotypes, there is only so much lieing to yourself you can do before you start accepting things as fact
moreso, i find that stereotyping is wrong when perceived when stating that it defines and entire population, it doesnt, there are quite numerous members of the stereotyped community that are not within the confines of a stereotype
however from what i have seen, over 60% (in some cases even over 80%) the stereotyped behavior and traits that follow are correct, and acknowledging they exist is not an expression of bigotry but stating the obvious

 

[Sarius1997]

TBH, i couldn´t care less about what the actual values are. They will probably be stored somewhere in an txt file, and extremly easy to mod. The feature itself being in is important

 

[gdj]

this is completely incorrect, and i stand by it on an empirical basis
i live in an extremely multicultural environment and when you see "xenos" do the very same things that are topic of stereotypes, there is only so much lieing to yourself you can do before you start accepting things as fact
moreso, i find that stereotyping is wrong when perceived when stating that it defines and entire population, it doesnt, there are quite numerous members of the stereotyped community that are not within the confines of a stereotype
however from what i have seen, over 60% (in some cases even over 80%) the stereotyped behavior and traits that follow are correct, and acknowledging they exist is not an expression of bigotry but stating the obvious

How do you explain then that polls indicate a higher degree xenophobia in areas where no xenos are present, as well in areas where the minority is very large, while the same data show very little xenophobia in communities that have an existent but small xeno population? Apart from that there are probably two brands of xenophobia (fear of the unknown vs. active disdain for what you know), values and stereotypes seem to have only limited impact on the perceived "threat" (thought the "threat" is likely an illusion).

 

[KopiG]

I dont care about real life. Arguments that real life works this way therefore in the game this is not logical and should work another way always baffled me . This is a game I want to enjoy. Looking forward for the rework. @WMJ I respectfully disagree.
On the Company of Heroes 2 forums there is a huge sticky which states: real life CANNOT be a basis on balance and gameplay. I would suggest @bjorn / @Wiz to make a similar statement as I believe it is just silly to mimic real life in a sci fi game.

 

[Tim_Ward]

a) there will be more than one factor affecting how pops change ethos
b) we don't know what all the factors that affect pop either will be. For all we know, it could be: in war + 10 militarist atraction but losing war +20 pacifist attraction
c) the devs will almost certainly play with the factors like a dimmer on a lightswitch through stellaris's development, adding new ones, taking out old ones, changing values etc etc
d) the factors that affect ethos 'in real life' are far to complicated to modal in a vidjya game and not even properly understood - your modal of how it works is likely no less simplistic and wrong than the one that will be in the game

 

[Dr. B]

I dont care about real life. Arguments that real life works this way therefore in the game this is not logical and should work another way always baffled me . This is a game I want to enjoy. Looking forward for the rework. @WMJ I respectfully disagree.
On the Company of Heroes 2 forums there is a huge sticky which states: real life CANNOT be a basis on balance and gameplay. I would suggest @bjorn / @Wiz to make a similar statement as I believe it is just silly to mimic real life in a sci fi game.

Have no worry, a recurring answer is that "realism is not an argument". The devs know how to model a game for gameplay.

That said, an important thing about ethics is that they always change over time. Sometimes like a pendulum movement, back and forth. Humans are fascinating like that.

 

[WMJ]

No, just no. Especially the xenophobe/xenophile analysis here is inaccurate. All relevant data show clearly that xenophobic tendencies are higher when a) there is virtually no contact at all with the targeted group or b) the targeted group is so large and visible that it is perceived as "invading". Consequently small groups of xenos living freely in your surroundings are more likely to cause xenophilia, while large (or: nonexistent) groups are more likely to lead to xenophobia. The given set of values by said group does not seem to be a deciding factor, thus Wiz's original concept mirrors reality somewhat better.

I also find it quite dangerous to believe that democracies are less prone to these tendencies. In fact, the contrary may be true as well (more public responsibility = more need for scapegoating a group that has little power/does not vote).

I guess what you're saving is not mean as irony.


Ok let's say that we have 2 POPS - one is a pacifist human and the other is a reptilian who happens to like to eat humans for dinner. They live next to eachother.


So..

According to your logic: the human POP would learn to like/stop fearing the reptile POP ..because he lives in the same area and they are able to spend time with eachother.


I can tell you that IRL - that wouldn't end well.

Because those 2 pops share radically different values.

On the other hand if you'd have 2 pops: the reptile POP and a monkey-man POP who both like to eat humans and both like to wage war - they, though different species, would burry their initial fear/dislike because they follow similar hobbies and interests.

Same goes for a human POP and a star-trek-volcan POP.

The main criteria IRL is the culture and belief system not time both groups spend with eachother.

 

[WMJ]

Hmm? That's not true. Ethnically/Religious/Racially diverse areas always have more conflict.

True, but the size of the conflict depends from the amount of the cultural defferences. It can be anytjing from a small difference of opinion to an open war.

 

[The_Meme_Man]

This is just us thinking as humans. IRL rules arent consistent even among humans (India is diverse, but a huge can of worms over its ethos and reasons). These mechanics seem fair and reasonable for logic and gameplay, allowing us to sympathize or object to the beliefs of whole species.

Consider some other intelligent animals on Earth. Elephants allow and trust strangers into their herd. Wolves enforce heirarchy with blood rather than just show of power like hominids do. Of course, ethos in game is cultural, not biological, but it makes sense that the environment encourages the most efficient beliefs.

Constant war creates a strong disciplined species. Being militaristic doesn't mean being bloodthirsty and brutish, and pacifists can be highly disciplined and turned aggressive.

Slaves are rabble, and is tough to tolerate them rather than hate them. Slaves dont get to be socially accustomed like free immigrants do or refugees do.

Being around xenos a lot encourages cooperation or tolerance, like animals at a watering hole, or humans who live where lots of other animals live.

Being attacked be xenos constantly can and should break xenophiles emotionally to create xenophobes, especially when victims of attrocities. Imagine a kid going to school to make new friends only to be bullied by everyone, it causes resent.

 

[Derp]

I can tell you that IRL - that wouldn't end well.

I love when people say this about completely fictional scenarios.

I can tell you that IRL, the two would learn to resolve their differences and become best friends, immortalized in a touching biopic. I know this because I'm an expert on man-eating alien lizard/human relations.

 

[WMJ]

Using your example, playing a militaristic empire would result in your pops becoming pacifists. This may make sense in your IRL-inspired suggestions but it would not work at all in this game:

e.g. If I want to play space Gandhi and the game responds by making my empire space Nazis then that's rather silly no?.

No. You don't understand what I have written in my opening post.