Psionic in Utopia

[Arkangilos]

Alright, let's just ask: if the ONLY way to use psi powers is to live a more spiritual life and become a spiritualist, and you really want to use that ability, would you do so? Would changing to a spiritualist ethos not then make you a spiritualist rather than a Materialist?

 

[aono]

if the ONLY way to use psi powers is to live a more spiritual life and become a spiritualist, and you really want to use that ability, would you do so?

Just in case - I believe it's obvious it was not me who asked about actual ethos problem.
Answer is yes.

How do you call a man who lives a life spiritualist live, who doing a lot of introspection, who believes some emotions gives him some power - AND believes everything is material, his emotions is just chemical reactions and his conciousness is just a number of electrochemical things in the brain? Is he spiritualist in your definition?

 

[Arkangilos]

Just in case - I believe it's obvious it was not me who asked about actual ethos problem.
Answer is yes.

How do you call a man who lives a life spiritualist live, who doing a lot of introspection, who believes some emotions gives him some power - AND believes everything is material, his emotions is just chemical reactions and his conciousness is just a number of electrochemical things in the brain? Is he spiritualist in your definition?

If he is living life as a spiritualist, then yes.

 

[aono]

If he is living life as a spiritualist, then yes.

So let me actually repeat it - just to be sure I read you right.
It's not matter what person believe. He can actually believe that all his spiritual practices have quite materialistic reasons to work.
Am I reading you right?

 

[terrycloth]

And that's why I bring psi. Psi-as-it-defended-here (I mean as "only spiritualists can psi because they do believe in souls") is actually a proof for one of ethos is right/wrong - if you can actually replicate a member of psionic specie FULLY but he can't do psi, it's not a full replica. You forgot something. That's a "reallity check", possibility to set actual experiment.

The ability to levitate things with your mind is not relevant to anything that souls are supposed to represent. At that point it's just an 'otherdimensional appendage that gives you psychic powers at the cost of going insane'. Spiritualists are wrong to confuse that thing that robots happen not to have with the soul -- you might as well say synths aren't people because they don't poop. Spiritualists are also wrong when they conflate 'I can make changes to reality by using psychic powers that I control by thought' with 'consciousness begets reality'.

===

The gameplay reason is this -- one of the more common complaints is that every game of Stellaris plays the same. This isn't entirely true, but the demand is there for more distinctions between different governments and ethics in gameplay terms.

'You can change your ethos during play' is probably not going to be a real factor except in the most gamey of gamey playthroughs. I mean, it's like the 'world conquest by 1550' run in EU4 where you start as the mongol horde and change religion three times to pick up some permanent perks from each.

 

[aono]

The ability to levitate things with your mind is not relevant to anything that souls are supposed to represent. At that point it's just an 'otherdimensional appendage that gives you psychic powers at the cost of going insane'. Spiritualists are wrong to confuse that thing that robots happen not to have with the soul -- you might as well say synths aren't people because they don't poop. Spiritualists are also wrong when they conflate 'I can make changes to reality by using psychic powers that I control by thought' with 'consciousness begets reality'.

Sure - so if nothing but matter exist you should be able to create this otherdimensional appendage by material means.
If you can't, and something but matter exists, it's not matter how did it related to sapience. Yeah, spiritualists can be wrong calling it consciousness, or not, but we should be able to explain their ability to fly in our paradigm, and at least try to explain it; until we managed to do so, we "proved" nothing.
That's how science works (at least, in theory).

The gameplay reason is this -- one of the more common complaints is that every game of Stellaris plays the same. This isn't entirely true, but the demand is there for more distinctions between different governments and ethics in gameplay terms.

I'm up for it.
But I can't see how more strict blocks within different ethoses can even possible to change that "every game of Stellaris plays the same" problem (and it is problem, I agree). Quite the opposite - even if you want to play with variables ("Ok, I like to play spiritualists, but I'm intrested to try cyborg spiritualists, something inspired by Adeptus Mechanicus"), game actually block you out. I can't see how actually it can be something but REMOVING distinctions between every game you play with set number of ethoses. If you setting "classes" to select before play, you create boring and predictable way to play. "I'm taking spiritualists, so I have one and only one way to play, because any other way blocked for me by ethos". Yes, you can check another ethos for another game and play a game another way - but you can do it now anyway. It's not something people do, because they believe some setups are inherintly better and more fitting to play - but it's balance issue, not ethos-difference issue. Also it's not a solution, because you just will have, well, 8 ways to play (at best), and problem stands.
I mean, we already had such a solution - primitives issue, where "xenophiles can't do anything here, this planet is for another ethos", or "Xenophiles can declare wars to another empires, but they can't invade for prewarp planets because it's for another ethos". Is somebody actually believes it was good decision?

I'm offering a system (well, it's Wiz and dev team created such a system, I'm just urging to use all it's potential!) where it's not your gameplay defined by your ethos, but your ethos defined by your gameplay. I'm saying: "You CAN declare offensive wars as a pacifist, but: 1) your pacifistic faction will be unhappy, so you'll need more troops to facilate unrest, you'll get less Unity and you'll get less Influence; 2) if you're doing it often, your Militaristic faction will get more influence, more people, and finally coup, and your ethos will change".
So if you want to make yourself difficulties for playing a diverse empires, with difficult politics, fine-tunable for your gamestyle - how can it DROP differences between playthroughs?

 

[terrycloth]

Sure - so if nothing but matter exist you should be able to create this otherdimensional appendage by material means.
If you can't, and something but matter exists, it's not matter how did it related to sapience. Yeah, spiritualists can be wrong calling it consciousness, or not, but we should be able to explain their ability to fly in our paradigm, and at least try to explain it; until we managed to do so, we "proved" nothing.
That's how science works (at least, in theory).


I'm up for it.
But I can't see how more strict blocks within different ethoses can even possible to change that "every game of Stellaris plays the same" problem (and it is problem, I agree). Quite the opposite - even if you want to play with variables ("Ok, I like to play spiritualists, but I'm intrested to try cyborg spiritualists, something inspired by Adeptus Mechanicus"), game actually block you out. I can't see how actually it can be something but REMOVING distinctions between every game you play with set number of ethoses. If you setting "classes" to select before play, you create boring and predictable way to play. "I'm taking spiritualists, so I have one and only one way to play, because any other way blocked for me by ethos". Yes, you can check another ethos for another game and play a game another way - but you can do it now anyway. It's not something people do, because they believe some setups are inherintly better and more fitting to play - but it's balance issue, not ethos-difference issue. Also it's not a solution, because you just will have, well, 8 ways to play, and problem stands.
I mean, we already had such a solution - primitives issue, where "xenophiles can't do anything here, this planet is for another ethos", or "Xenophiles can declare wars to another empires, but they can't invade for prewarp planets because it's for another ethos". Is somebody actually believes it was good decision?

I'm offering a system (well, it's Wiz and dev team created such a system, I'm just urging to use all it's potential!) where it's not your gameplay defined by your ethos, but your ethos defined by your gameplay. I'm saying: "You CAN declare offensive wars as a pacifist, but: 1) your pacifistic faction will be unhappy, so you'll need more troops to facilate unrest, you'll get less Unity and you'll get less Influence; 2) if you're doing it often, your Militaristic faction will get more influence, more people, and finally coup, and your ethos will change".
So if you want to make yourself difficulties for playing a diverse empires, with difficult politics, fine-tunable for your gamestyle - how can it DROP differences between playthroughs?

If you don't set 'classes', then you end up doing everything in every playthrough and every playthrough is the same. If all that picking spiritualist does is give a few small modifiers then it isn't going to feel different. So you want there to be something specific for each ethos and then you pick a combination of those to get your unique gameplay.

Since you pick 3 ethoses (or possibly one twice), you end up with 8*8*7 ways to play, instead of one if there were no restrictions.

The 'Xenophiles can't invade primitive planets' is a *great* example! It's a lot different to be enlightening primitives and getting protectorates that you eventually integrate then it is to just invade primitives and treat them like especially easy to colonize planets. Because of the restriction, you get different gameplay. It was a really good decision.

It looks like now how it works is, if you want to do something that you're locked out of, you need to convince your population *first* by supporting the appropriate faction and using that faction to change your government. This isn't something you're going to do lightly or often, so it doesn't undermine the different play styles, it just lets you switch which one you're using mid-game.

 

[Velorian]

It's not that I can't see your logic @aona, but I think there are multiple ways to go depending on which themes you decide is true in your universe/franchise.

Limiting it to spiritualists is pretty arbitrary and possibly less likely than other options, but it COULD be the case, and in un-modded Stellaris lore it just is.

It's like how in Star Wars lasers can fly slowly and visibly or be used in swords, yet somehow bullets are considered useless. Sometimes things just are and you have to use your Suspension-Of-Disbelief to retain sanity. This case is rather minor in my book, as I can think of many semi-plausible reasons.

And that's why I bring psi. Psi-as-it-defended-here (I mean as "only spiritualists can psi because they do believe in souls") is actually a proof for one of ethos is right/wrong - if you can actually replicate a member of psionic specie FULLY but he can't do psi, it's not a full replica. You forgot something. That's a "reallity check", possibility to set actual experiment.

Well, maybe each person has a "spiritual appendage" tying him to the shroud, which builds up over years as they experience and think. Then you can make a 100% copy of a person, but be unable to copy the spiritual part, his "soul" if you will.

Essentially the copy will have full knowledge and memory of accessing the Shroud yet still fail because he lacks the ability. It could be that he builds up the ability anew, or it could be that he is forever barred access because he is deemed "fake" by the Shroud.

In Star Wars force sensitivity is not copied no matter how good the clone. In other book series I've read clones don't always have such ability either.

Almost certainly Synths/AIs, no matter how realistically made, also can't access it.
Likely a materialist would choose the immortality of cybernetics over getting some psychic powers that he has to brainwash himself to access. Besides, if he did brainwash himself he'd cease to be a materialist.

 

[aono]

Since you pick 3 ethoses (or possibly one twice), you end up with 8*8*7 ways to play, instead of one if there were no restrictions.

I have as much ways to play as I want, as game allowing me. If player don't want to play everything but one thing, you can't make him just because you put any other options there. It's not infamious North Korea CK2 playstyle - because it is actually unintended way to play a game, it's screwing the system; but we're speaking about playstyles that ARE allowed for game. If there are 448 ways to play, I would have 448 ways to play with or without restrictions, but without restrictions you can select between them freely, not being forced to one you selected on the start, without actual knowing galaxy setup. Oh. "Yeah, you can change your ethos to meet situation, but if you can make it often it will be same with disabling restrictions, so it should be rare decision."
You see, when you say "we need hard blocks to make us play different playstyles", you're actually say "we have one "press-WIN-button playstyle, so we need to block it somehow".

The 'Xenophiles can't invade primitive planets' is a *great* example! It's a lot different to be enlightening primitives and getting protectorates that you eventually integrate then it is to just invade primitives and treat them like especially easy to colonize planets. Because of the restriction, you get different gameplay. It was a really good decision.

That's where we do disagree then. I'm sure it's a awful arbitrary (xenophiles are not pacifist, right?) decision that just locking gameplay options.
If invading planets are inherintly better that protectorates, so player would always annex primitives if he haven't roleplay reasons not to do so, it's not means somebody should be arbitrary locked to do so. It means designers should make having protectorates better or annexing primitives worse. If invading planets are not inherintly better, it's safe to allow players to decide what's fit them better, and you'll have different playstyles automatically.
I believe it's a very major point for me, so sorry - I'm trying to be clear. I believe that to create alternate playstyles you need to create real alternatives, not create classes. With classes you'll just pick a class you're comfortable to play and never will came out, because why would you? and some classes, until you can do perfect balance, will be better then another. Random example - you will always put an energy-giving building in the tile with resourse until you have real reason to do another way, and that will create similiar gameplay - and it will very bad decision just to say "you're collectivist, so you're screwed. You can't put anything but farm here. We did it to make gameplay different".
If you have different options, you'll have a choice, in-game choice, not some choice you did one time when created race. You can actually choose - "so, what's better for me now - is it psi ascension or robotic one? should I invade this primitive or put listening post there? should I befriend all that guys around or conquest them?" If that choices are balanced, playstyles would be different - I prefer diplomacy, my friend prefer conquest, that's ok, we don't need locked classes for it.
But ethos, your governmental ethos and your factions, can play a big role here. They can give you weights to do a choice. "Yeah. I can actually invade a planet, with this benefits and this drawbacks, or I can create a protectorate here (same - benefits and drawbacks). That's a difficult decision. But I have a lot of pacifists in my empire who won't approve using military force. So if I select invasion, I'll take big influence, production and unity hit. So I better take protectorate option!" Or you can say: "Well, yeah, it will hit me. But it's strategical planet I need, with a specie I want now. So I'll invade it and take this hit, because benefits are better as drawbacks".
One can say I'm offering classes as well. I'm actually prefer to think about it as about "affinities". You can be flexible.
And flexibility in my opinion IS what's you need to differentiate gameplay.

 

[aono]

Limiting it to spiritualists is pretty arbitrary and possibly less likely than other options, but it COULD be the case, and in un-modded Stellaris lore it just is.

Not yet. It can be set in un-modded Stellaris lore, because in current play psi is actually minor issue, couple of techs without real impact on lore. I can create a minimod that will add a tech "psionic theory" as bonus tech to the specie I want or just create more events to add psi theory to scientist.
When Utopia would be released, and events would be written (and some of them, I believe, rewrited), and every in-game psi reference would be linked to spiritualistic ethos, and every psi-based event chain would be set for this - THEN it would be in un-modded Stellaris lore, and actually it would be quite difficult to mod it adequately. That's why I'm arguing it now, when final numbers are not final, not when all will be done and it would be a day before release.
EDIT: Of course, it's possible to write everything to setting. In Dune it's possible to create working ecosystem with one and only one specie. In StarCraft you can eat somebody and take his traits. And it's not bad. I just believe it's not something worth writing into.

Well, maybe each person has a "spiritual appendage" tying him to the shroud, which builds up over years as they experience and think. Then you can make a 100% copy of a person, but be unable to copy the spiritual part, his "soul" if you will.

Yes. That's what I meant - psi-as-it-proclaimed-now is a refutability clause for materialist/spiritualist theory. Maybe developers don't see it or not think about it, or maybe they believe it's minor, but it is.
If you can create a soul, if you can make a 100% copy of a person by materialistic means, if you can create psi-active AI, materialists are right and spiritualists are wrong.
If you can't, spiritualists are right and materialists are wrong.

In Star Wars force sensitivity is not copied no matter how good the clone. In other book series I've read clones don't always have such ability either.

Actually it's kinda complicated. In Luuke Skywalker clause (http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Luuke_Skywalker) force sensitivity definitly was copied, and Mara Jade, who had Sidius-induced order to kill Luke (I firmly believe it was Force-supported, because, hell, we're talking about Palpatine here!), will be relieved from this order for killing Luuke.
But it's nice question how "materialistic" Star Wars cloning technology actually is.

 

[Velorian]

When Utopia would be released, and events would be written (and some of them, I believe, rewrited), and every in-game psi reference would be linked to spiritualistic ethos, and every psi-based event chain would be set for this - THEN it would be in un-modded Stellaris lore, and actually it would be quite difficult to mod it adequately. That's why I'm arguing it now, when final numbers are not final, not when all will be done and it would be a day before release.

It will almost certainly be very easy to mod (one or two lines to change ascension requirements), unless you mean text references to spiritualism.

In that case it'll still be easy, just time-consuming.

Yes. That's what I meant - psi-as-it-proclaimed-now is a refutability clause for materialist/spiritualist theory. Maybe developers don't see it or not think about it, or maybe they believe it's minor, but it is.
If you can create a soul, if you can make a 100% copy of a person by materialistic means, if you can create psi-active AI, materialists are right and spiritualists are wrong.
If you can't, spiritualists are right and materialists are wrong.

Well they are both wrong, and both right then.

Clearly something more than the purely material plane exists, but that doesn't invalidate the overall materialist philosophy. There are still no gods, just spirits, and the "soul" is just some sort of link to another dimension, not personhood.

Spiritualists will see the lack of a soul as evidence that AIs are just advanced toys and that people turning themselves into machines are actually killing themselves, even though their minds remain completely the same with plenty of value regardless.

Just because spiritualists gain power from their beliefs does not mean they are actually right, just that they aren't entirely wrong. I believe a person with a materialist mindset would choose to seek cybernetic immortality instead of pursuing psionics.

Why? Well, is the Shroud the afterlife? If it is, do we remain the same or are we recycled to be reborn? Is it even pleasant to be there?

You'd basically be gambling away your existence on a hope. Current tech humans have nothing to lose I guess, but if it's incompatible with available immortality techs then..

 

[aono]

Clearly something more than the purely material plane exists, but that doesn't invalidate the overall materialist philosophy. There are still no gods, just spirits, and the "soul" is just some sort of link to another dimension, not personhood.

...and then it should be able to replicate with materialistic science. After all, nobody argue that Materialists can research etherial Unbidden and their extraplanar weaponary.

Just because spiritualists gain power from their beliefs does not mean they are actually right, just that they aren't entirely wrong. I believe a person with a materialist mindset would choose to seek cybernetic immortality instead of pursuing psionics.

If you define spiritualism as a version of beliefs where thought beget reality and something exists beyond matter, no, psionic locked to spiritualism because only they have right mindset IS proving they're actually right. They can argue about details, afterlife and so on, but everybody who will came and say "there is actually nothing but matter, and everything can be explained with materialistic frame" would be wrong.
CURRENT system, yeah, allow some playing around. Materialists can be psionics now, they can research psi and so on - question is only to take somewhere psi-active scientist. Then they can make psi-computers and so on. But if psi is hard-locked to spiritualism? If psi just can't be replicated with materialistic means?
It could be intresting/fair if materialists also had something spiritualists can't replicate by fluff means. But problem is, as we speaking about materialistic science and technology, using matter, building spaceships, mining minerals, and spiritualist empires doing all this. They can do everything materialists can do. It's a question what do they WANT to do matters. They definitly would be able to make synth, even if they wouldn't do it.

UPD

In that case it'll still be easy, just time-consuming.

Sorry, but I'm not ready to call writer/world designer work easy.

 

[Velorian]

...and then it should be able to replicate with materialistic science. After all, nobody argue that Materialists can research etherial Unbidden and their extraplanar weaponary.

Reasonable assumption, except research is going to come up empty. So maybe the spiritualists have a valid point. Doesn't mean you can't cling to an eternal life in this dimension instead of worshipping some strange conundrum and hoping for the best.

They can argue about details, afterlife and so on, but everybody who will came and say "there is actually nothing but matter, and everything can be explained with materialistic frame" would be wrong.

You are looking at it very black and white. It's still true that everything in this plane of existence can be explained within the materialist framework, some flaws may show up where another dimension overlaps with this one.

Why would that be such a big deal? It doesn't mean you have to accept any teachings about gods or souls and such, even if such belief is required to access it.

One might be inclined to give it some thought of course, but I don't see the Shroud as evidence of a great creator deity that demands to be worshipped. Even if a spirit claiming to be such was met in there I'd be inclined towards scepticism.

It could be intresting/fair if materialists also had something spiritualists can't replicate by fluff means. But problem is, as we speaking about materialistic science and technology, using matter, building spaceships, mining minerals, and spiritualist empires doing all this. They can do everything materialists can do. It's a question what do they WANT to do matters. They definitly would be able to make synth, even if they wouldn't do it.

I believe spiritualists won't be allowed to turn themselves into machines. Make Synths perhaps, but not change themselves into one.

 

[aono]

So maybe the spiritualists have a valid point. Doesn't mean you can't cling to an eternal life in this dimension instead of worshipping some strange conundrum and hoping for the best.

Sure, it doesn't. Actually there was a big, big, vocal arguements (and I'm agree with them) - spiritualists aren't obliged to worshipping anything and even to hope anything as well. Even religious spiritualists can actually believe that Shroud populated with dread gods and daemons who just want eat your soul!
But actually it's very, very stupid just ignore reality. And of course you can't have science bonus (main materialistic advantage, right?) with such attitude.

You are looking at it very black and white. It's still true that everything in this plane of existence can be explained within the materialist framework, some flaws may show up where another dimension overlaps with this one.

Of course I'm looking at it black and white. With actions actually locked by being spiritualists and materialists, game makes me looking black and white here.
That's what I'm urging - let grey areas to be, gameplay- and fluff-wise.

Why would that be such a big deal? It doesn't mean you have to accept any teachings about gods or souls and such, even if such belief is required to access it.

Because, as gameplay options are locked by ethos, the way people thinks about it is defining their lifes and politics.

I believe spiritualists won't be allowed to turn themselves into machines.

Once again.
Spiritualists CAN be turned into machines. They CAN have such technology. They don't WANT to do it, but they CAN.
Materialists CAN'T have psi. They can WANT or NOT WANT it, but they CAN'T.
UPD:
Imagine two countries.
One of them says: I have nuclear bombs! I'm cool!
Another says: I can have nuclear bombs as well. But I would never use them, because it's against my morality. Instead I have astonishing intelligence service. That you'll never have just because I'm cool.

 

[Velorian]

Once again.
Spiritualists CAN be turned into machines. They CAN have such technology. They don't WANT to do it, but they CAN.
Materialists CAN'T have psi. They can WANT or NOT WANT it, but they CAN'T.

Technically you could say it's enforced roleplay. That only spiritualists are capable of wanting it enough to go through with it.

They are also incapable of agreeing on turning into machines, unlike the materialists.

Sure, it doesn't. Actually there was a big, big, vocal arguements (and I'm agree with them) - spiritualists aren't obliged to worshipping anything and even to hope anything as well. Even religious spiritualists can actually believe that Shroud populated with dread gods and daemons who just want eat your soul!
But actually it's very, very stupid just ignore reality. And of course you can't have science bonus (main materialistic advantage, right?) with such attitude.

I disagree, they'd still want to study it, it's just that in order to actually harness it they'd have to give up everything they believe in. So they don't.

You as the player gets the prerogative to say, OK we'll do it. By embracing spiritualism, perhaps in a cynical attempt to harness it, or because you think the mere existence of another plane means you were wrong.

 

[aono]

I disagree, they'd still want to study it, it's just that in order to actually harness it they'd have to give up everything they believe in. So they don't.

I believe you misunderstood me.
I meant that a position "ok, we have solid proof everything we believe in is wrong, so what? we can't research it so let's ignore it" isn't a position that should give bonus to research.

 

[Velorian]

I believe you misunderstood me.
I meant that a position "ok, we have solid proof everything we believe in is wrong, so what? we can't research it so let's ignore it" isn't a position that should give bonus to research.

My point is who says they choose not to study it? It's just that they can't implement any techs involving that knowledge. They can study what's possible and what to expect, but they can't do it themselves unless they are willing to change their world view.

Just like hyper drive civilizations might notice others using wormholes, even if they don't do it themselves.

Also I don't think the Shroud/Psi proves they are wrong per se, but if a civilization believes that they can just invest the time and effort in looking inwards as a community and study it until they understand (Awaken). That effort is represented by embracing a spiritualist faction in your government.

 

[aono]

My point is who says they choose not to study it? It's just that they can't implement any techs involving that knowledge. They can study what's possible and what to expect, but they can't do it themselves unless they are willing to change their world view.

I feel myself going circular (and absurd, because as I see it you actually trying to say that materialists can be materialists when they're not materialists), truth to be said. Please, let's try to break it.
Materialistic doctrine, the very world view we're taliking about, include a tenet that there is no such things you can't study within this world view. So admitting it isn't so would be full-scale failing for said world view.
Shroud and psi are exists. Is it possible to research it from materialistic world view? No, you answer (and that's something I'm offering to change). You can't succefully research psi and Shroud by materialistic means.
So in the end they have only two possibilities. Ignore proofs about existing psi and stays materialistic (not the position that gives research bonus, and actually not very materialistic way), or stop being materialistic and embrace spiritualism. Embracing spiritualism is admitting that your previous belief was wrong... ok, let's get away from philosophical proofs - because it's polar ethoses and no game empire can be materialistic and spiritualistic at once.
Don't you agree?

EDIT:

Just like hyper drive civilizations might notice others using wormholes, even if they don't do it themselves.

Sure.
But if the main tenet of their philosophy would be "wormholes are impossible", such a noticing will destroy their culture and creats crisis. That change would be changing an ethos.

Actually I believe there is no logical explanation for this thing, and it's just arbitrary gameplay choice without considering fluff and roleplay issues. I'm sad about it. But as you still arguing it's not, well...

 

[Radically Right Wing]

Sure, it doesn't. Actually there was a big, big, vocal arguements (and I'm agree with them) - spiritualists aren't obliged to worshipping anything and even to hope anything as well. Even religious spiritualists can actually believe that Shroud populated with dread gods and daemons who just want eat your soul!
But actually it's very, very stupid just ignore reality. And of course you can't have science bonus (main materialistic advantage, right?) with such attitude.


Of course I'm looking at it black and white. With actions actually locked by being spiritualists and materialists, game makes me looking black and white here.
That's what I'm urging - let grey areas to be, gameplay- and fluff-wise.


Because, as gameplay options are locked by ethos, the way people thinks about it is defining their lifes and politics.


Once again.
Spiritualists CAN be turned into machines. They CAN have such technology. They don't WANT to do it, but they CAN.
Materialists CAN'T have psi. They can WANT or NOT WANT it, but they CAN'T.
UPD:
Imagine two countries.
One of them says: I have nuclear bombs! I'm cool!
Another says: I can have nuclear bombs as well. But I would never use them, because it's against my morality. Instead I have astonishing intelligence service. That you'll never have just because I'm cool.

What you are overlooking here is that even though Spiritualists CAN have Robotics.... they actually can't. Bear in mind that Spiritualist Ethos is especially good at rallying all of the pops of that Empire into being fellow Spiritualists, that is kind of their thing. And all the Spiritualist pops get a -25% happiness penalty not for using robot, but just for them actually being legal! Imagine if in order to do a certain playstyle you had to give your entire Empire a -25% happiness penalty. It is not viable, that empire would simply disintegrate in a matter of weeks. Not to mention that unrest and unhappiness are going to be even bigger things in the coming expansion so... using robots as a Spiritualist looks possible on paper, but in terms of the game it is actually not.

 

[aono]

What you are overlooking here is that even though Spiritualists CAN have Robotics.... they actually can't.

Please. I can read. This thesis is actually so-often here that I'm learned it by heart already. It's not an answer to my issue here. So I'll give you same reasoning I give to everybody (just to hear that spiritualists can't have robotics because they never want again. And again. And again.).
Imagine two scientists, Materialistic and Spiritualistic one. They're coming to science conference. They're actually have polar ethoses and tries to prove that opponent is wrong. They have same education and same talent. Both are honest.
Materialist says: "Ok. My proof that my ethos, my philosophy, my way to live and govern country is right, because I can do robots and you can't".
Spirituslist answers: "Oh, no, no. I perfectly CAN create a robot. I can do everything you can do. I never will, because my spiritualistic reasons, but I can. But I have psi, and you can't even try to study it, because your view of the world is flawed".
What can materialist answer? Nothing, because fluff would be created in a way where spiritualist ACTUALLY is right, materialist ACTUALLY is wrong, and psi is an experiment both can use to check who is right.
Once more. It's fluff issue. It's quite possible to say (and I already agree!) that it's not actual fluff feature, that it's "is abhorrent to pretend that all Spiritualists – in-game terminology – would despise Robots and their upgraded counterparts. Similarly, it is abhorrent to pretend that all Materialists – in-game terminology - in the real world would despise or not want to research on their own terms Psionic abilities and technologies." until we're speaking about gameplay, not fluff.
But let's not mix and unmix gameplay and fluff at whim.