While I'm pretty confident that Stellaris won't change their ethos system to the way I like it, just as I'm sure that I will never care enough to learn how to do an Ethos Overhaul mod myself, but I'd still like to have a discussion on this issue.
Firstly I would just like to point out that the Authoritarian v. Egalitarianism thing is just plain dumb.
Firstly because Authoritarian is just another name for slaver in this game, and I just don't find that fun, engaging or creative. Secondly because, I can choose to have an Imperial government without putting a single point in Authoritarianism. So I literally have a dictatorship that is inheritable, BUT DON'T YOU CALL US AUTHORITARIANS! Again, that's just plain dumb.
What I think would be better then authoritarian, would be despot, or despotic, or tyrannical.
Now I know this sounds a bit weird, but I don't think these should be tied into government types, now hear me out.
Stay with me now, don't rage yet, hear me out: Just because a government is democratic that doesn't make it moral, egalitarian, or good.
I think I'll use societies that actually existed for examples.
Take the Republic of Rome, they had tons of slaves, yet they were democratic(They had a senate)
Take literally any monarchy decades before world war one, they were monarchies, and fairly egalitarian.
And I don't want to get Social Justice Warrior here(because I'm not one) but... America when founded pretty much had a racial caste system. Yet they were Republics.
I think it would be better to instead make the Tyrannical v. Egalitarian dichotomy based around living standards or something. Like Egalitarian pops will expect better living standards but will produce more research, or something.
Something like that(Tall Empires?). While Tyrannical Societies will be the slavers.
What it appears Paradox was TRYING to do was to set up Egalitarian republics up against (evil?) Tyrannical empires. What I suggest doing is treating government type like another Ethos Dichotomy. Have Democratic be one end, while Dictatorial will be on the other end, but there will be a twist, there will be a middle to this Dichotomy, an oligarch. Dictatorial Empires and Democratic empires will have a small opinion penalty with one another, with oligarchs getting a much smaller one from each group. That way there can be Democratic Crusaders that actually make sense.
Maybe even add in factions for people who support Democracy or Monarchy, or an elitist group or whatever.
What do you guys think?
Firstly I would just like to point out that the Authoritarian v. Egalitarianism thing is just plain dumb.
Firstly because Authoritarian is just another name for slaver in this game, and I just don't find that fun, engaging or creative. Secondly because, I can choose to have an Imperial government without putting a single point in Authoritarianism. So I literally have a dictatorship that is inheritable, BUT DON'T YOU CALL US AUTHORITARIANS! Again, that's just plain dumb.
What I think would be better then authoritarian, would be despot, or despotic, or tyrannical.
Now I know this sounds a bit weird, but I don't think these should be tied into government types, now hear me out.
Stay with me now, don't rage yet, hear me out: Just because a government is democratic that doesn't make it moral, egalitarian, or good.
I think I'll use societies that actually existed for examples.
Take the Republic of Rome, they had tons of slaves, yet they were democratic(They had a senate)
Take literally any monarchy decades before world war one, they were monarchies, and fairly egalitarian.
And I don't want to get Social Justice Warrior here(because I'm not one) but... America when founded pretty much had a racial caste system. Yet they were Republics.
I think it would be better to instead make the Tyrannical v. Egalitarian dichotomy based around living standards or something. Like Egalitarian pops will expect better living standards but will produce more research, or something.
Something like that(Tall Empires?). While Tyrannical Societies will be the slavers.
What it appears Paradox was TRYING to do was to set up Egalitarian republics up against (evil?) Tyrannical empires. What I suggest doing is treating government type like another Ethos Dichotomy. Have Democratic be one end, while Dictatorial will be on the other end, but there will be a twist, there will be a middle to this Dichotomy, an oligarch. Dictatorial Empires and Democratic empires will have a small opinion penalty with one another, with oligarchs getting a much smaller one from each group. That way there can be Democratic Crusaders that actually make sense.
Maybe even add in factions for people who support Democracy or Monarchy, or an elitist group or whatever.
What do you guys think?