Space Racism and Preferential Treatment

[Harle]

Myself and a friend were playing cooperatively, a plant/fungus federation who, in theory, viewed all meat-peoples as inferior. We only allowed other plant/fungus people into the federation, we were careful to enslave only meat-people, etc. But we were disappointed to see that there are no options in the game that allow you to specify preference for type, rather than your own species.

All or nothing is weird. I think it makes a lot of sense for, say, insectoids to treat other insectoids differently than they might treat a mollusk species. In fact this really ought to be the default - you should probably have to go out of your way a bit to broaden your xenophilia to races of different types.

I'd love some options at the empire and possibly federation level that reflect this. Ideally I'd like to be able to open a panel and select for myself which species types I want a policy to apply to, but I'd settle for adding in a 'same type' between 'all' and 'host species' for a number of the empire policies.

 

[eon47]

Policies based on phenotype seem strange to me and even a bit immersion-breaking , but I'm fine with them being added to the game as long as I don't have to use them. What I'd like to see, however, is the ability to institute a caste system. I want to designate certain species as cannon fodder, others as scientists, etc. etc, and have the game help me make that happen. For instance, being able to create defensive garrisons from warrior class species not present on the planet in exchange for the race receiving a happiness penalty would be nice, or the ability to limit species growth on a planet only to squares of their designated caste. It would be beneficial from a gameplay and roleplaying perspective.

 

[Pyramid_Head]

Until phenotypes are just cosmetic and do not provide any effects, Mammalian Unity or Great Growth or other species-related alliances are meaningless. Game just shuffles portraits and species to get some random result. We can add random bonus reactions and penaldies just as well.

 

[Jerev]

There should be additional level of randomized AI personalities along with current ones. Some races should be ok with avians, others detest insectoids or fungoids etc. If a race who suffered from Last of Us cataclysm came across fungoid species there could be at least some nervousness. But given current state of things we'll see that in Diplomacy dlc 1 or Diplomacy DLC2, right after Fleet DLC 23

Before launch and during the Blorg stream Martin (Wiz) said something to Anders (cKnorr) about xenophobes being not so racist to other empires when those are ruled by the same species group. I never experienced something like that so I guess the idea existed but was to complicated to integrate into the launch version.

 

[Harle]

Policies based on phenotype seem strange to me and even a bit immersion-breaking , but I'm fine with them being added to the game as long as I don't have to use them. What I'd like to see, however, is the ability to institute a caste system. I want to designate certain species as cannon fodder, others as scientists, etc. etc, and have the game help me make that happen. For instance, being able to create defensive garrisons from warrior class species not present on the planet in exchange for the race receiving a happiness penalty would be nice, or the ability to limit species growth on a planet only to squares of their designated caste. It would be beneficial from a gameplay and roleplaying perspective.

Phenotype is a specific (ie, individual) observable expression of dominant genes, as opposed to genotype, which includes recessive genes. It's used to describe individuals, more or less. Phenotype is probably not the word you were looking for. But that's beside the point.

I'm curious why you think that would be strange to you. I imagine a scenario where humans were confronted with either humanoid aliens or insectoid aliens, and I think it's fairly clear to which of the two that humans would, as a species, be more likely to integrate into our society.

 

[eon47]

Phenotype is a specific (ie, individual) observable expression of dominant genes, as opposed to genotype, which includes recessive genes. It's used to describe individuals, more or less. Phenotype is probably not the word you were looking for. But that's beside the point.

I'm curious why you think that would be strange to you. I imagine a scenario where humans were confronted with either humanoid aliens or insectoid aliens, and I think it's fairly clear to which of the two that humans would, as a species, be more likely to integrate into our society.

Phenotype is Stellaris talk for portrait groups--I think the devs themselves started it, but I don't remember for sure anymore. So there's the reptilian phenotype, mammalian, etc.

I don't take Stellaris phenotypes literally. For instance, since plants are an Earth concept to begin with, I don't imagine what looks like leaves to us are in fact leaves, and I definitely don't think two plant portrait species are necessarily more genetically similar than two portraits from, say, a random mammalian and reptilian. Therefore, I also don't think two species in the same group have similar organs, experiences, diets, or anything else, so there's not a lot to build on even for space racists to make sweeping generalizations about. You could be right about similar appearances, but not all species in a single phenotype even look alike (check out slender three compared to massive seventeen in avians). I'm skeptical that an alien species would discriminate along such inconsistent lines--racism is inherently arbitrary, certainly, but even this feels like a stretch. But that said, if it doesn't hinder my game, I don't care if others have it.

 

[BlackUmbrellas]

Phenotype is Stellaris talk for portrait groups--I think the devs themselves started it, but I don't remember for sure anymore. So there's the reptilian phenotype, mammalian, etc.

I don't take Stellaris phenotypes literally. For instance, since plants are an Earth concept to begin with, I don't imagine what looks like leaves to us are in fact leaves, and I definitely don't think two plant portrait species are necessarily more genetically similar than two portraits from, say, a random mammalian and reptilian. Therefore, I also don't think two species in the same group have similar organs, experiences, diets, or anything else, so there's not a lot to build on even for space racists to make sweeping generalizations about. You could be right about similar appearances, but not all species in a single phenotype even look alike (check out slender three compared to massive seventeen in avians). I'm skeptical that an alien species would discriminate along such inconsistent lines--racism is inherently arbitrary, certainly, but even this feels like a stretch. But that said, if it doesn't hinder my game, I don't care if others have it.

This has always been my interpretation, too.

Calling the fungoids "fungoids" is just for the sake of conveying a feeling and generalized idea to us, the human players (as are the AI dialogue fill-options that come with playing a fungoid- or any other phenotype for that matter). They probably don't actually have all that much in common with each other; I doubt that, given equal intelligence, humans would find very much "familiar" in a colony of naked mole rats (they're eusocial, you know. They have a "queen" that keeps the others infertile through pheromones), or for that matter a praying mantis and a cicada.

 

[ywxiao]

Races and species are very very different. But I get what you are saying, and I think Stellaris can easily take a page from EUIV for role playing purposes if nothing else.

 

[Harle]

Phenotype is Stellaris talk for portrait groups--I think the devs themselves started it, but I don't remember for sure anymore. So there's the reptilian phenotype, mammalian, etc.

I don't take Stellaris phenotypes literally. For instance, since plants are an Earth concept to begin with, I don't imagine what looks like leaves to us are in fact leaves, and I definitely don't think two plant portrait species are necessarily more genetically similar than two portraits from, say, a random mammalian and reptilian. Therefore, I also don't think two species in the same group have similar organs, experiences, diets, or anything else, so there's not a lot to build on even for space racists to make sweeping generalizations about. You could be right about similar appearances, but not all species in a single phenotype even look alike (check out slender three compared to massive seventeen in avians). I'm skeptical that an alien species would discriminate along such inconsistent lines--racism is inherently arbitrary, certainly, but even this feels like a stretch. But that said, if it doesn't hinder my game, I don't care if others have it.

Interesting on the phenotype thing. I've never heard that term used, or if I did I glossed over it. I.. admit that I probably won't use it myself, it strikes me as awkward. But fair enough, I'll keep that in mind, thanks for clarifying.

As to the rest, I take your point and I think that's a valid way to approach it.

However, I would say that I think that when it comes to initial 'first-contact' style racism; appearance, even rough approximation, is a lot more important than genetics, organs, experiences, diets, or anything else. Humans are more comfortable with vaguely humanoid robots than they are with any non-anthropomorphic designs, as an example. A humanoid-looking alien, regardless of how it got to appear that way, or what is beneath the surface, or how it acts, would be at least initially more comfortable than something that appears to be an insect but in reality is a lot more like humans in every other non-observable way.

The reason for that is basic neurology and the product of evolution. We are a social species and our brains have developed over time to recognize certain visual traits - human markers. We still empathize with and immediately identify with cartoon people and anthropomorphic cartoon animals because they share visual traits that our brains are comfortable with. There's a neurological basis for what I'm saying - at least in so far as it applies to humans. There's lots of interesting phenomenon around this that I won't get into, but suffice to say it's an interesting subject.

You could fairly make an argument that this is just how humans have evolved, but I would argue that it would be reasonable to expect that most social species would develop this way for practical reasons (the ability to recognize and empathize with like-people is an important part of being a social species). And for those species who did not grow this way, the game would still allow them to exist.