what's your opinion on stellaris getting a moral/alignment system?

[Empire of Terra Nova]

one of the things i absolutely loved about star wars: kotor 1&2 was the continuous development of your character depending on your choices towards three alignments (dark, light, neutral), which were further distinguished in "lawful", "chaotic" and "true"

this could be adapted on the empire level for example during the exploration phase, for the policies you pick, for how you fight wars, if you're using the colossus, how you treat xenos, how you respond to diplomatic offers etc.

leaning towards a side would grant buffs, towards the light side might gradually buff your ships' defense and hull points and make bastions stronger, the dark side might come with buffs to your weaponry and also unlocking new weapons, and neutrals might be rewarded with a flourishing economy

lawful empires would get random events with positive outcome (happiness, stability, leader skills etc.) as a reward for staying true to the alignment you pick while chaotic empires would see their unrest increased and so on because you would make erratic and impulsive choices, not actually following the moral alignment but rather the situational profit

it would also affect the appearance of your pops and leaders and the dialogues in the diplo screen, just for the flavour and nicer optics (it feels anyway to meet that cute little creature with deep dark eyes and an almost smiling face... who happens to be a fanatical purifier wanting to exterminate your species)

(or why the authoritarian advisor always sounds evil even if you're the galactic emperor declaring the eternal peace and defending the galaxy against crisis forces, while pacifists sound like saints even if they're inwards perfectionist and purge every single xeno they stumble upon by extermination)

any opinion on that, or other ideas?

 

[Liggi]

Geniune question: how is this different to the ethics system that is currently in place?

 

[Ten_Tacles]

Geniune question: how is this different to the ethics system that is currently in place?

Ethics don't really change, and you always start with fully realised ethics already.

This sounds like a system that changes while you play. I would find it nteresting, but I dislike the basic good/evil dichotomy.

 

[Me_]

No. Please leave D&D out of Stellaris.

 

[Liggi]

Ethics don't really change, and you always start with fully realised ethics already.

This sounds like a system that changes while you play. I would find it nteresting, but I dislike the basic good/evil dichotomy.

But they do change? I pretty much always end up changing ethics during the course of a game at least slightly. If anything I'd like to see that system expanded to become more impactful. I don't really want to bring a system of "moral judgement" into Stellaris.

 

[Ten_Tacles]

But they do change? I pretty much always end up changing ethics during the course of a game at least slightly. If anything I'd like to see that system expanded to become more impactful. I don't really want to bring a system of "moral judgement" into Stellaris.

I guess you play differently to me then! Because I rarely change ethics.

I agree with you though, I would rather see that system expanded as well, rather than an arbitrary morality system.

 

[Empire of Terra Nova]

i haven't thought about expanding the current ethics system but making it gradually change itself depending on how you play the game. i would second it though

in this context it might also be better if the ethics had a greater impact (maybe as some sort of levelling over time)

 

[Ryika]

I think such an alignment system wouldn't fit Stellaris at all, since one of the biggest strengths is the moral neutrality of its game mechanics.

The game doesn't tell you "Purging the Xeno is the right thing to do!", even though it clearly is. Instead, it allows you to go down dark paths - like picking the Xenocompatibility Ascension Perk - and still feel like "the hero of your own story".

 

[Kapi96]

Gal Civ 3 has that, and I don't like it. It's way too stereotyped with "good" being self-sacrificing and wanting to help everybody and "evil" being not that. Being selfish is not "evil", just like helping others (at the expense of your own people) is not "good".

You can argue that maybe Paradox could do it better, but they won't. It will just be a bunch of actions/choices that are arbitrarily labeled "good" or "evil" and it would completely ignore the fact that morality is relative rather than absolute.

 

[Lykus Cerebros]

Please don't do something like that. It doesn't fit with the ethic system so there would be two parallel systems and I don't see the point behind that.

Also it sounds like you just want buffs for your good side while screwing over even the chaotic side.

 

[Empire of Terra Nova]

Also it sounds like you just want buffs for your good side

by buffing the damage output of bad guys' ships? yes, i like blowing up the galaxy, but the good guys are getting their defences buffed so what's the point?

while screwing over even the chaotic side.

it's like a cooldown upon embracing new factions: a negative incentive so that you stay overall coherent in your choices

 

[Lykus Cerebros]

it would be melt into one system

It doesn't fit though.
Example what about inward perfectionist? Are they evil for being xenophobes or are they good for being pacifists?

Also what bad event would good guys get? Because if there is no drawback it's just a tool to turn players into a certain way.

Stellaris offers different playstyles and doesn't judge you for it. That level of freedom is what many people like. our headcannon makes up if you are good or evil.
I might be an authoritarian materialist who frees slaves. Doesnt that make me good?
Or a fanatical egalitarian xenophobe aka everyone is equal but Xenos aren't people.

Your suggestion would impose someone else's choices what's good or bad over this and that's what I reject.

 

[Quinzal]

Morals are subjective.

A militarist may think a pacifist is evil for not fighting for their beliefs, and they may be right.
A spiritualist may think a materialist is evil for perpetuating soulless beings, and they may be right.
A xenophobe may think a xenophile is evil for rejecting their own species, and they may be right.
An authoritarian may think an egalitarian is evil for abandoning individuals to fend for themselves in a hostile galaxy, and they may be right.

The reason why it works well in Star Wars is because Star Wars is already a developed story, with clearly defined good and bad guys with defined ways that this dichotomy acts.

Stellaris has seventeen different ethics, sixty one different types of governments, eighty eight different civics, an unknowable amount of different species possibilities, and every game starts with no backstory except what you chose during empire creation.

It doesn't work.

 

[Strangedane]

Concepts like good and evil doesn't make a lot of sense in stellaris.
It doesn't even makes sense in starwars, where the jedi are an order of sociopatic autocrats policing an entire universe, while still thinking the force is unbalanced AGAINST them, despite having reduced the other side to near extinction. The levels of evil are almost matched by the levels of stupidity.

Jedi: "The force is unbalanced"
Me: "Yeah no shit, you killed everyone in contact with the dark side."
Jedi: "No it's because we jedi don't have complete power yet."
Me: "Ok Palpatine, ok."

Good and evil are in the eyes of the beholder, and I'd very much like to keep it like that in stellaris.

Xenophobes could be isolationists who litterally never engages with other empires unless directly attacked.
Egalitarians could be imperialists trying to subjugate the galaxy or even destroy the universe.

 

[Incompetent]

It would be interesting to see a system with spontaneous evolution in governing ethics according to circumstances, especially with the more pluralist government types (or for the more authoritarian types, the possibility of a coup/revolution). However, for it to work, I think it would need an extensive redesign of the relationship between ethics and civics, policies and so on (to avoid situations where half the empire's build suddenly becomes "invalid"), and also the ethics attraction factors of pops would have to balanced quite carefully so certain ethics don't end up dominating the galaxy every game.

 

[Empire of Terra Nova]

i see that many users are in favour of moral relativism, which i personally reject as amorality. i'm convinced of the universality of moral values, and reading most of the brought up examples (well, maybe except for the hilarious point of view on the jedi ^^) i get the feeling that the posters are well aware of what is objectively the right moral decision

the moral alignment as proposed in op would evolve upon the choices the player picks ingame;
- if the pacifist player colonises a planet with pre-sapients and chooses to purge them the empire will advances a few points towards evil, if the pacifist player uplifts them and grants them full citizenship his empire will advance towards the good side
- if the authoritarian player chooses the enslavement of certain pops the empire turns more evil, if the authoritarian player maintains peace for x years or changes his diplo stance to only defensive wars the empire will become more good
- if the militarist player attacks another non-genocidal empire: evil, if he attacks genocidals to end threat: good

in highly controversial situations, like a neighbouring non-genocidal having a relationship score below -300, a preemptive strike might count as well as neutral move yet leading to a more chaotic alignment. same goes for claiming provinces while in offensive war: more chaotic, while claiming them during peace time: more lawful

researching anomalies or any sort of random events would have explicit choices leading to different alignment combinations (in fact, a lot of events already have that sort of dialogues, though are all leading to the same consequences which seems very odd. one might even think that the devs originally had plans on implementing some sort of moral system...)

 

[Cry_Havok]

Ethics largely cover your idea of an alignment system, though expanding the ethics system to make following your ethics matter would be preferable. Right now because of how little faction approval matters you never have to act according to your empires ethics, and some factions eventually become unpleasable as well (looking at you militarist).

 

[methegrate]

i see that many users are in favour of moral relativism, which i personally reject as amorality. i'm convinced of the universality of moral values, and reading most of the brought up examples (well, maybe except for the hilarious point of view on the jedi ^^) i get the feeling that the posters are well aware of what is objectively the right moral decision

the moral alignment as proposed in op would evolve upon the choices the player picks ingame;
- if the pacifist player colonises a planet with pre-sapients and chooses to purge them the empire will advances a few points towards evil, if the pacifist player uplifts them and grants them full citizenship his empire will advance towards the good side
- if the authoritarian player chooses the enslavement of certain pops the empire turns more evil, if the authoritarian player maintains peace for x years or changes his diplo stance to only defensive wars the empire will become more good
- if the militarist player attacks another non-genocidal empire: evil, if he attacks genocidals to end threat: good

in highly controversial situations, like a neighbouring non-genocidal having a relationship score below -300, a preemptive strike might count as well as neutral move yet leading to a more chaotic alignment. same goes for claiming provinces while in offensive war: more chaotic, while claiming them during peace time: more lawful

researching anomalies or any sort of random events would have explicit choices leading to different alignment combinations (in fact, a lot of events already have that sort of dialogues, though are all leading to the same consequences which seems very odd. one might even think that the devs originally had plans on implementing some sort of moral system...)

I don't think real world issues of moral relativism and amorality apply here. Stellaris tells a story in which ethics are subjective. Authoritarians think that it's amoral to reject your proper place in society, while egalitarians think that it's amoral to force people into those roles. Pacifists think that it's amoral to fight for almost any reason, while militarists think that it's amoral to let weakness grow and thrive.

Of course you're free to want a light/dark axis applied on top of that. (Although it seems like you want to literally just copy the D&D alignment chart of Good/Evil Lawful/Chaotic?) To each his own, by absolutely all means! Personally I don't think it would add anything to the game. If anything, I think the subjectivity of ethics in Stellaris should be much stronger. Militarists should be rewarded for fighting and should be punished for peace. Spiritualists should function better when they pursue their faith and should fall apart when they don't. Imo empires should behave like societies in which these ethics define the common good.

The question is just what someone thinks would make the game more fun. Just because someone likes Stellaris' story about subjective ethics, it doesn't mean that they don't understand issues of moral relativism in real life. They can also like FTL without needing a primer on Einstein, space dragons without needing a lesson in biology, and centralized resources without a course on long haul truckers. Whether we're talking about space logistics, planet populations or moral relativity, realism is never the point.

 

[Quinzal]

i see that many users are in favour of moral relativism, which i personally reject as amorality. i'm convinced of the universality of moral values, and reading most of the brought up examples (well, maybe except for the hilarious point of view on the jedi ^^) i get the feeling that the posters are well aware of what is objectively the right moral decision

You're seeing the planet Earth through the eyes of a human sitting at a computer, with a human evolution, human cultural bias, and human condition.

Stellaris is a game about an entire galaxy seen through the eyes of countless different species engaged in interstellar politics, trade, and warfare, with their own unique circumstances.

If morals are universal to you, why would it not make sense for me, a trade league run by goat people living in space stations, to have my own set of morals that I thought were universal?

It wouldn't make sense for morality to play a major role in the game unless you're playing the United Nations of Earth, one empire out of nigh unlimited.

- if the pacifist player colonises a planet with pre-sapients and chooses to purge them the empire will advances a few points towards evil, if the pacifist player uplifts them and grants them full citizenship his empire will advance towards the good side

So if said pacifist player does not yet have the technology to uplift, and chooses to hunt them so they stop tearing into their energy supply, that makes them evil? If a human in real life killed a tiger that was about to kill them, would that make them evil?

- if the authoritarian player chooses the enslavement of certain pops the empire turns more evil, if the authoritarian player maintains peace for x years or changes his diplo stance to only defensive wars the empire will become more good

So all species in a galaxy are supposed to share your view on the Democratic Crusader bordering them who keeps insulting and claiming their systems every other week?

- if the militarist player attacks another non-genocidal empire: evil, if he attacks genocidals to end threat: good

So war, in all cases except to end an existential threat, is evil. Nothing about proliferation, ending a threat before it begins, etc?

Morals aside, this sounds like a great way to chase people away from the game.

 

[Ridixo]

Good and evils doesn't matter for even while some ethics are more good or evil, they aren't good or evil by themselves. Militaristic is an ethic in which war is seen as good that doesn't mean the empire with militaristic ethics goes and attack everything as they were berserks. A pacifist empire may well just watch as another one purges hundreds of pops for they don't want to go to war. Even more if the pacifist empire is xenophobe. They will keep seat and see the genocide. Meanwhile a militaristic empire with authoritarian and xenophile will got to war just to stop the massacre. Adding good and evil will make those things either good or evil. Black and white moral are simplistic view for complex things. The ethics work best also because you play empires, not persons. An empire doesn't think, isn't a concrete thing, therefor an empire can ponder their own goodness or evilness. The people that compose the empire can, but as is always the case, they would only be villains if they loose

Either you loose and become a villain or you play long enough to see yourself the emperor and savior of the galaxy