Suggestion: Innate Ethos

[TheDarkMaster]

Basically this would reduce the gameplay on offer by taking out all of the consequences of pop divergence.

I mean, if you want to mod it in so you can play a genuinely fanatically individualist nation, fine - but the effect is to make the game smaller and easier.

Not all, only partial. You basically would set one and only one of your ethos branches to be innate, the other(s) could still diverge.

 

[aitaituo]

Not all, only partial. You basically would set one and only one of your ethos branches to be innate, the other(s) could still diverge.

Right, you pick one ethos to be a superethos at no additional cost. There's not much point in distinguishing between partially super easy mode and fully super easy mode, especially when it's super easy mode only in regards to one mechanic. Like, why split hairs over the All Player Corvettes are Invincible button and the All Player Ships are Invincible button? The player still gets a super button to hit.

 

[TheDarkMaster]

Right, you pick one ethos to be a superethos at no additional cost. There's not much point in distinguishing between partially super easy mode and fully super easy mode, especially when it's super easy mode only in regards to one mechanic. Like, why split hairs over the All Player Corvettes are Invincible button and the All Player Ships are Invincible button? The player still gets a super button to hit.

The suggestion has been changed. You no longer pick one super ethos, instead you distribute three points as per normal, and then spend 2 trait points on making one of those ethos innate. You cannot pick multiple innate ethos traits. The cost here is the opportunity costs of not taking some other beneficial trait instead.

EDIT: To make it absolutely clear, these are trait points being spent on making an ethos innate, not ethos points. Trait points are used to make your race have +1 food output on spaces they work, gain +25% experience as leaders, or reduce ethos divergence by 10/20%.

 

[aitaituo]

The suggestion has been changed. You no longer pick one super ethos, instead you distribute three points as per normal, and then spend 2 trait points on making one of those ethos innate. You cannot pick multiple innate ethos traits. The cost here is the opportunity costs of not taking some other beneficial trait instead.

The way your phrasing it makes it sound like your proposing three trait points are spent as normal, then you get two additional points for free, but only if you want a super ethos. I don't see why multiple innate ethos options is relevant, per my previous hyperbole about a super ships button. One super ship, all super ships, what does it matter? The only effect is to make the game easier but not call it cheating.

 

[TheDarkMaster]

The way your phrasing it makes it sound like your proposing three trait points are spent as normal, then you get two additional points for free, but only if you want a super ethos. I don't see why multiple innate ethos options is relevant, per my previous hyperbole about a super ships button. One super ship, all super ships, what does it matter? The only effect is to make the game easier but not call it cheating.

The innate ethos effect is tied to traits, not ethos points. These: http://www.stellariswiki.com/Traits

It would probably cost 2 points and be mutually exclusive with all other innate ethos traits.

 

[aitaituo]

The innate ethos effect is tied to traits, not ethos points. These: http://www.stellariswiki.com/Traits

It would probably cost 2 points and be mutually exclusive with all other innate ethos traits.

So instead of a trait, you get a super ethos. Or you take four negative traits and get two?

There's just no way to balance this idea. It's meant to be unbalanced. It's like trying to make a democracy a dictatorship of the people. You get a dictatorship, no matter how committed to democratic ideals you may be, because the goal was to destroy A by turning it into E, not to make Æ.

 

[TheDarkMaster]

So instead of a trait, you get a super ethos. Or you take four negative traits and get two?

There's just no way to balance this idea. It's meant to be unbalanced. It's like trying to make a democracy a dictatorship of the people. You get a dictatorship, no matter how committed to democratic ideals you may be, because the goal was to destroy A by turning it into E, not to make Æ.

You mean, like how there's a trait for 2 points that's effect is -20% ethics divergence? Making one of your ethics innate is basically a variation of that, you force your race to always have one particular ethos rather than reducing the rate that they diverge overall. There is an obvious cost to taking this, as well as an obvious advantage. Without testing, there really isn't much else that can be said about the idea, other than it has potential. You can't really just write it off without testing it, nor can you definitely say that it should be in the game.

 

[Lemont Elwood]

Nobody here has even talked about the consequences of encountering a race that has an innate ethos. If the game generated a Fanatic Xenophobe race, for example, that would make expansion into their worlds much more problematic...

 

[BrokenSky]

The suggestion has been changed. You no longer pick one super ethos, instead you distribute three points as per normal, and then spend 2 trait points on making one of those ethos innate. You cannot pick multiple innate ethos traits. The cost here is the opportunity costs of not taking some other beneficial trait instead.

EDIT: To make it absolutely clear, these are trait points being spent on making an ethos innate, not ethos points. Trait points are used to make your race have +1 food output on spaces they work, gain +25% experience as leaders, or reduce ethos divergence by 10/20%.

Realistically if you're running it off the idea that they cannot hold other traits (it's just too alien to them, like how people seem completely unable to understand the concept of bacon vs. necktie as a morality axis) it should definitely be a trait. I'm not sure 2 points is the correct price (I can see good arguments for both it being stronger and weaker than that) but balancing would be needed.

 

[aitaituo]

Nobody here has even talked about the consequences of encountering a race that has an innate ethos. If the game generated a Fanatic Xenophobe race, for example, that would make expansion into their worlds much more problematic...

Indubitably, they leave the civilised no choice but to extinguish them from the pages of history. It is a tragedy and one cannot blame another for being born with a nature incompatible to proper civilisation. We shall remember them and strive to bring the torch of civil society to all those able to carry it.

...is the kind of nonsense people wrote when audiences still agreed with the notions of eugenic morality.

 

[Lemont Elwood]

Indubitably, they leave the civilised no choice but to extinguish them from the pages of history. It is a tragedy and one cannot blame another for being born with a nature incompatible to proper civilisation. We shall remember them and strive to bring the torch of civil society to all those able to carry it.

...is the kind of nonsense people wrote when audiences still agreed with the notions of eugenic morality.

Your point being?

 

[sethfc]

Indubitably, they leave the civilised no choice but to extinguish them from the pages of history. It is a tragedy and one cannot blame another for being born with a nature incompatible to proper civilisation. We shall remember them and strive to bring the torch of civil society to all those able to carry it.

...is the kind of nonsense people wrote when audiences still agreed with the notions of eugenic morality.

So you're saying an alien species, which evolved on a different world, could not have a genetic predisposition towards a specific philosophical or ethical way of thinking?
That it is impossible for a race to have high amounts of their equivelent of testosterone and be highly aggressive? Even though there are several species of animal on earth which are naturally highly aggressive (Wolverines anyone?) why would it be impossible for a race to be naturally predisposed to militancy? or perhaps a race with a very strong sense of xenophobia perhaps due to another sentient race warring with them for millenia leading to literally breeding the xenophobia into them as those without it died out? More-over the opposite is also possible, a race might have evolved pacifism under specific circumstances, or xenophilia on a world with many races which had to co-operate (or even simply having many pets). Eugenic morality is not what we are discussing here, we are discussing innate traits such as Hive minds, Aggressive races, and other strange characteristics. For example let's imagine a race which is naturally (read instinctively) territorial and prideful, and likes to have their own personal space, and which relies on individual accomplishments to attract a mate, after becoming a fully sentient species this translated to a form of natural 'individualism' which meant that even if they were incorporated into some big federation, and exposed to plenty of alternatives, nothing short of genetic engineering or long term mutation could cause them to lose this sense of individuality and resistance to conformity, because they inherantly want to be individuals and to stand on their own, as otherwise they would feel less attractive to prospective mates.

Is that entirely impossible? Is a hive of insects with a natural instinct to consider themselves expendable parts of the hive possible? of course it is. To say this sort of thing is impossible is incredibly narrow minded.

 

[Surimi]

Your point being that this is a reason why an innate ethos would be bad from a gameplay perspective, yes?

Yes. I think it would be bad from a gameplay perspective. I also think it is largely unnecessary from a believability or roleplaying perspective. As far as we know, minds do not determine "innate" beliefs. Individualism might mean a different thing to a superorganism (it might not be demarcated by the strict bodily understanding of the individual subject) but I think it is rather limiting to assume that some culturally specific understanding of individualism could not arise in that instance.

It is worth noting that in the blog streams, thus far the blorg have never had their pops diverge from their fanatical xenophilism, only militarism. Their blorg factions have all been pacifist factions, which were definitely giving them problems.

Which merely illustrates what an incredible advantage the ability to completely remove pop divergence on a single state ethos would be. You have a maximum of three (although in this case, you would always want to pick two and have the innate one be fanatic save for roleplaying reasons, as with any option which offers a powerful advantage with absolutely no negative consequences.)

The problem here is that you have an optional trait the effect of which is not to grant a bonus or have a static effect the worth of which can be quantified and balanced, but rather which has the effect of removing a variable amount of disadvantage from a wholly different variable, a variable which also happens to be a core part of gameplay and a major limiting factor on some pretty important things, like the maximum size of an empire which can feasably hold together over the long term.

That it is impossible for a race to have high amounts of their equivelent of testosterone and be highly aggressive?

It has never been concretely determined that testosterone has any consistent impact on aggression in humans. Many studies report that it does, but a similar number find no correlation. This is not helped by the fact that it is very difficult both to accurately measure testosterone levels (in a living body) or to adequately define aggression.

Again, I think we have to beware of the notion of using animals as a template for how aliens might think or behave, because it probably shouldn't be any more believable than using humans as a template.

 

[sethfc]

Which merely illustrates what an incredible advantage the ability to completely remove pop divergence on a single state ethos would be. You have a maximum of three (although in this case, you would always want to pick two and have the innate one be fanatic save for roleplaying reasons, as with any option which offers a powerful advantage with absolutely no negative consequences.)

The problem here is that you have an optional trait the effect of which is not to grant a bonus or have a static effect the worth of which can be quantified and balanced, but rather which has the effect of removing a variable amount of disadvantage from a wholly different variable, a variable which also happens to be a core part of gameplay and a major limiting factor on some pretty important things, like the maximum size of an empire which can feasably hold together over the long term.

It has never been concretely determined that testosterone has any consistent impact on aggression in humans. Many studies report that it does, but a similar number find no correlation. This is not helped by the fact that it is very difficult both to accurately measure testosterone levels (in a living body) or to adequately define aggression.

Again, I think we have to beware of the notion of using animals as a template for how aliens might think or behave, because it probably shouldn't be any more believable than using humans as a template.

If we can't agree on genetics, basic bio chemistry or general lines of thought then this discussion is no longer possible to continue, so I won't debate any further on the science of the issue, since we simply are not compatible in our thinking process. Edit: I just think that if we really can't agree to understand what I meant in referencing testosterone (using it as a basic means of saying aggression causing hormone) in addition to my mentioning of physiology so obviously larger/more emphasized aggressive parts of the brain as we clearly see in some animals then we really can't continue can we? we both have our beliefs which we both feel are based on fact, I can find studies to support my beliefs, and I'm sure you can to, neither of us are experts so why bother?

As far as gameplay, they'd still have divergence on a single axiom at least (or on 2 if they put only one point in their innate) and as we've seen with the Blorg a single divergence is enough to cause problems, infact we haven't seen any divergence from xenophilia for them (at least none that caused political parties) yet they still had problems...why would preventing drift on a single axiom negate the problem entirely? you'd still have materialism versus sprituality, and militancy versus pacifism if you locked in the xenophilia as a trait.

Also not everything has to be 'optimal' who cares if it costs 2-3 trait points? for some of us it'd be worth it just to make the race we want, I highly doubt it'd be a huge advantage, as we've seen that the Blorg still had problems, and with this we'd be incapable of changing our government ethos, for example say we're xenophobic, but forming a federation would be really helpful, we can't shift to xenophilia and have better relations, instead we're stuck with our choice without gene engineering. It's not a big disadvantage, but then again it isn't a huge bonus either.

That being said, I'm done arguing this matter, so I'll concede the point to you for what it's worth, in the end it isn't worth the trouble of adding it, since we have seen ethos divergence is incredibly rare for fanatical ethos anyway, it's more of a fluff matter/tiny detail for some people than it is a big feature.

 

[aitaituo]

So you're saying an alien species, which evolved on a different world, could not have a genetic predisposition towards a specific philosophical or ethical way of thinking?

The impossible is possible at zombocom.

There's certainly not the least reason to think so for the kinds of species being portrayed in Stellaris. They invented FTL travel. You expect me to believe they lack the mental capacity to fathom a spectrum of values? Look at humans. A huge amount of our instinctive behaviors are social behaviors, but hermits have been around for thousands of years. In a low-diversity species like ours, we have an ancient tradition of ignoring our basic instincts to be smelly philosopher priests in caves.

An innate ethos really does challenge the basic idea of how we define an ethos, why people have them, and how they affect their behavior. Would such a race be genetically incapable of Stoicism? Epicureanism? Utilitarianism?

Fringe cases, like the Goa'uld, are fringe cases even in sci-fi. And the perfectly overlapped genetic and ideological divide of the Goa'uld was the uncomfortable fact being explicitly ignored by the Tok'ra.

 

[Aunel]

The impossible is possible at zombocom.

There's certainly not the least reason to think so for the kinds of species being portrayed in Stellaris. They invented FTL travel. You expect me to believe they lack the mental capacity to fathom a spectrum of values? Look at humans. A huge amount of our instinctive behaviors are social behaviors, but hermits have been around for thousands of years. In a low-diversity species like ours, we have an ancient tradition of ignoring our basic instincts to be smelly philosopher priests in caves.

An innate ethos really does challenge the basic idea of how we define an ethos, why people have them, and how they affect their behavior. Would such a race be genetically incapable of Stoicism? Epicureanism? Utilitarianism?

I agree with your notion, but I don't think every single race should use the exact same spectrum and the same rules. While each individual differs from the next, it is also true that every species of animal seems to have a "core" ethos, if you will, which is like an average.

To take your example of hermits, these are people that live isolated from the rest of society, but among humans these individuals aren't the norm. If you look at panda's, however, you'd be hard pressed to find an individual that doesn't live like this. On the other hand you have the collectivist dystopias like in the books Brave New World and 1984. Some humans might be fine living like that, but most aren't. Look at insect colonies though and... I'm sure you get the point.

So, if realism is the goal, then I do think that there should be different ethoses that members of a race can follow, but I also think that there should be a proverbial box for each race to think within.

 

[BrokenSky]

There's certainly not the least reason to think so for the kinds of species being portrayed in Stellaris. They invented FTL travel. You expect me to believe they lack the mental capacity to fathom a spectrum of values? Look at humans. A huge amount of our instinctive behaviors are social behaviors, but hermits have been around for thousands of years. In a low-diversity species like ours, we have an ancient tradition of ignoring our basic instincts to be smelly philosopher priests in caves.

And yet most people don't seem to understand even other human's value systems (more through laziness and unwillingness to learn than mental capacity though). Based on my own experiences I suspect that there exist several different religions which are nearly incomprehensible to one another; I know that a lot of people don't seem to understand the value system of my religion/philosophy at all, while I look at what some of they say and think them insane (so I probably don't understand them either). [No specifics, sorry]

I don't think it would be hard for an alien with different neurology (or equivalent) as well as different social and reproductive structures to find certain ethoi similarly incomprehensible, and regardless of whether it's actually possible in real life, the idea that aliens might have a value system which was, well, so alien to us as to be incomprehensible, and that they might likewise be unable to comprehend ours is a pretty standard sci-fi, fantasy and cosmic horror convention (orange and blue morality).

 

[GizahNL]

I kinda like it, would make my race cowards (fanatical pacifists)

 

[BrokenSky]

Oh yeah or Orks, who need to have combat to grow, like how humans need sunlight and vitemines, being pacifist ever makes no sense. Etc.

 

[Fireplay]

Oh yeah or Orks, who need to have combat to grow, like how humans need sunlight and vitemines, being pacifist ever makes no sense. Etc.

You could support peaceful means of growth in the Orks but doing so would require a total reform of their society, which isn't really possible when everything around them wants to kill them.