Suggestion: Innate Ethos

[Lemont Elwood]

EDIT: Somebody has made a better suggestion later in this thread. I've still left my original comment for context, but here's an amended proposal: include mutually-exclusive traits that lock all Pops of your species (barring genetic engineering) from drifting in a given ethos. For example, a "Hive Mind" trait would make it so that your Pops can ONLY be Fanatic Collectivists, while a "Purely Objective" trait would make it so that your Pops can ONLY be Fanatic Materialists. This would allow people to roleplay as races with thinking/social structures so different from humanity that, for that ONE issue, ideology is not a factor.





When Ethos were first announced, I had the impression that they would be much more static parts of a species' identity, reflecting the psychology of it. However, they apparently aren't at all. While some species may have traits that affect their tendency to drift, you don't have inherently collectivist species, or inherently militarist species, or anything else.

This is rather disappointing to me, as xenopsychology is one of my favorite parts of science fiction.

Now, we currently have three points that we can put into ethos, and putting two of them into one grants the fanatic stance. What I'm suggesting is the ability to put all three points into a single ethos to make an innate trait, preventing any drift except through genetic engineering.

EDIT: Picture it like this: Collectivism would be a species that generally emphasizes regulation and social harmony over personal liberty, what we might call socialism. Fanatic Collectivism would be a species that effectively bans personal liberty, what would be more like communism. Innate Collectivism would be a species that fundamentally can't comprehend independent rights or action, like a hive mind.

 

[Denkt]

You talk about traits not ethos.

 

[Winterwolf00]

That....actually sounds like an interesting idea.
Keeping the same number of ethic points you could have either a normal ethic, a fanatic ethic, or an ingrained genetic trait.

 

[GC13]

Remember, ethos drift is supposed to be a big enough deal that you might want to spend two of your species trait points to drop ethos divergence by 20%. If all it took to completely remove the possibility of ethos drift was giving up one ethos point (which seem to be valued at roughly a 1:1 basis with trait points), the balance would be completely thrown off.

 

[Lemont Elwood]

Remember, ethos drift is supposed to be a big enough deal that you might want to spend two of your species trait points to drop ethos divergence by 20%. If all it took to completely remove the possibility of ethos drift was giving up one ethos point (which seem to be valued at roughly a 1:1 basis with trait points), the balance would be completely thrown off.

I'd argue that it's (potentially) balanced out by the fact that you're foregoing up to two other ethos, your bonus as an Innate isn't any higher than as a Fanatic (even though you're spending an extra point), and you're gambling on the idea that you'll want those bonuses for the rest of the game.

For that matter, subject species would also be a problem, since they could still drift, while you couldn't reform to suit their desires.

 

[Oscot]

Innate Collectivism would be a species that fundamentally can't comprehend independent rights or action, like a hive mind.

...and then when you put Mr Space Ant on a colony world, under a different sun, a thousand light years away from the Hive Queen, with his Space Internet full of stories of all these other races that do have individualism, and then some of these individualists immigrate to the planet and walk amongst them, and Mr. Space Ant goes to work at their Space Job and starts talking to a Space Owl who tells him that their species doesn't have hive minds at all and everyone can stroll around as they please...

...maybe then Mr Space Ant starts to be able to understand independent rights and action. Oh look that's what happens in Stellaris.

 

[eon47]

Considering the discussion in the "Collectivist vs. Individualist actually Hierarchical vs. Egalitarian" topic, I can't say I agree with your interpretation of collectivism and individualism, and the reasoning there affects why I think this should be a racial trait rather than an ethos. A hive mind race could be egalitarian/individualist (everyone acts as one) or hierarchical/collectivist (like Earth insects, including queens, drones, workers--I believe there's even a kind of ant that enslaves other species).

 

[KonradKurze202]

The problem is Ethos aren't genetic. Humans are no more genetically predisposed towards militarism than collectivism than xenophobia. Ethos are societal views, not related to genetics at all.

 

[Tototoine]

...and then when you put Mr Space Ant on a colony world, under a different sun, a thousand light years away from the Hive Queen, with his Space Internet full of stories of all these other races that do have individualism, and then some of these individualists immigrate to the planet and walk amongst them, and Mr. Space Ant goes to work at their Space Job and starts talking to a Space Owl who tells him that their species doesn't have hive minds at all and everyone can stroll around as they please...

...maybe then Mr Space Ant starts to be able to understand independent rights and action. Oh look that's what happens in Stellaris.

In a "hive-mind" society, Mr.Space-ant wouldn't talk to anybody, since he CAN'T. Because it's a worker and he lacks the intelligence to do anything except working. Also, a "hive-mind" society would never invent internet. If it would, it would be for communication purpose only, between hive-queens.

 

[Admiral Howe]

Honestly can't see much fun or gameplay gained by this. There should always be some chance of drift - even if small. Yes you can make an argument for fallen empires to lack drift, their time has passed and the remainders are just going through the motion. But a young, vibrant species should have the chance to branch out during its first forays into the stars.

 

[Surimi]

There is a trait called conformist which seems like it would be the way to go if you wanted a species with a an inherent psychological disposition towards your state ethics.

However, having the ability to avoid drift completely utterly negates one of the main elements of the game and makes all your pops extremely boring. What's to stop them just joining the loyalist faction and sitting there?

 

[Oscot]

In a "hive-mind" society, Mr.Space-ant wouldn't talk to anybody, since he CAN'T. Because it's a worker and he lacks the intelligence to do anything except working. Also, a "hive-mind" society would never invent internet. If it would, it would be for communication purpose only, between hive-queens.

If he's not got the intelligence for independent action, he's not a POP, he's a tele-operated limb.
Under your model I guess individual (or small clusters of) hive queens would be what is represented by the POPs.

 

[Surimi]

Under your model I guess individual (or small clusters of) hive queens would be what is represented by the POPs.

Indeed. I'm pretty sure this is why they don't specify the exact number of individuals which make up a pop.

 

[6076]

In a "hive-mind" society, Mr.Space-ant wouldn't talk to anybody, since he CAN'T. Because it's a worker and he lacks the intelligence to do anything except working. Also, a "hive-mind" society would never invent internet. If it would, it would be for communication purpose only, between hive-queens.

He does have his own processing unit, therefore, he is capable of thought, i.e. processing external stimulus. As for the internet - why not? Drones have a need to propagate information fast and reliable, internet is what they really need, nowadays ants use pheromones for that, you can compare it with IP broadcasting. And take a look on some research about ants, that attitude of considering them mindless automatons is quite annoying, if anything, the queen is such a thing, piece of flesh that serves only one purpose in live - laying eggs, certainly not controlling hive.

 

[Nobody679]

so you are saying that fallen empire should be innate instead of fanatic?

 

[aitaituo]

Ethics are values systems. They are the means by which you determine what is worth doing and what should not be allowed to happen. Genes effectively program a pretty disturbing amount of our behaviors, but there's no gene for socialism, no gene for fascism, no gene for anarcho-syndicalism. To me, the thing that makes sci-fi so interesting is the technology that lets species truly transcend the limitations of their biology.

Plus, obvious balance issues. You took only "genetic" ethics, so no need for conformist and no penalty for individualism.

 

[Admiral Howe]

so you are saying that fallen empire should be innate instead of fanatic?

I conceive of Fallen Empires like the Vorlons or Shadows from Babylon 5, ancient races long past their zenith that simply go through the motions because they always have. And most of what they do is done because it's always been done with no one perhaps remembering why.

 

[Remoria]

I conceive of Fallen Empires like the Vorlons or Shadows from Babylon 5, ancient races long past their zenith that simply go through the motions because they always have. And most of what they do is done because it's always been done with no one perhaps remembering why.

The G'bbaba a terrible scourge on the galaxy thats no longer even sapient. no advances in 5k+ years

 

[Wolfshield156]

The G'bbaba a terrible scourge on the galaxy thats no longer even sapient. no advances in 5k+ years

I get this reference... Though I do wonder why it seems like the author started this huge thing that look like it would be like orson scott card homeworld series going over multiple generations, but then just get's stuck in one point.

 

[Lemont Elwood]

My apologies for taking os long to respond.

...and then when you put Mr Space Ant on a colony world, under a different sun, a thousand light years away from the Hive Queen, with his Space Internet full of stories of all these other races that do have individualism, and then some of these individualists immigrate to the planet and walk amongst them, and Mr. Space Ant goes to work at their Space Job and starts talking to a Space Owl who tells him that their species doesn't have hive minds at all and everyone can stroll around as they please...

...maybe then Mr Space Ant starts to be able to understand independent rights and action. Oh look that's what happens in Stellaris.

You're missing the point. Applying human thinking to aliens. Mr. Space Ant may not be ABLE, or willing, to be an individualist. It may be in his blood to serve the colony, just like how a real ant can't ever act on its own.

The problem is Ethos aren't genetic. Humans are no more genetically predisposed towards militarism than collectivism than xenophobia. Ethos are societal views, not related to genetics at all.

Firstly, there's all kinds of articles out there on how political dispositions may be at least partially hereditary. Secondly, an "alien" is, by definition, not a "human."

Honestly can't see much fun or gameplay gained by this. There should always be some chance of drift - even if small. Yes you can make an argument for fallen empires to lack drift, their time has passed and the remainders are just going through the motion. But a young, vibrant species should have the chance to branch out during its first forays into the stars.

The fun would come from roleplaying as this very extreme species, or interacting with it. I addressed the gameplay: if you take an Innate Ethos, you're guaranteeing that you always have that Ethos FOR BETTER OR WORSE. Or, maybe you're interacting with species that are more challenging because they just can't be negotiated with in certain ways. Sometimes, a lack of control makes a situation more interesting. Finally, there's four different sliders! You're only foregoing one. Three sliders is plenty enough to drive politcal gameplay. Your last argument makes no sense at all.

There is a trait called conformist which seems like it would be the way to go if you wanted a species with a an inherent psychological disposition towards your state ethics.

However, having the ability to avoid drift completely utterly negates one of the main elements of the game and makes all your pops extremely boring. What's to stop them just joining the loyalist faction and sitting there?

It's only one of four sliders, though. You'd still have drift in the other three. You're making the choice to secure ONE slider, but the other three can move just as easily.