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

[Casko]

Democracy does not equal good
Xenophobia does not equal evil
Spiritualism does not equal evil
materialism does not equal good
Militarism does not equal evil
Pacifism does not equal good
Xenophilia does not equal good

nuff said.

 

[Cry_Havok]

Democracy does not equal good
Xenophobia does not equal evil
Spiritualism does not equal evil
materialism does not equal good
Militarism does not equal evil
Pacifism does not equal good
Xenophilia does not equal good

nuff said.

Spiritualism and Xenophobia are incompatible with good behavior on both a Kantian and Utilitarian analysis. When the two primary systems of ethics agree you suck, you are objectively bad (Isolationist Xenophobes are less bad than Supremacist). All other ethic combinations are allowed to give full rights to all thinking creatures (what those rights are can obviously vary)

 

[TrotBot]

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?

I think that your actions should reflect on your ethics. Being a fanatic egalitarian xenophobe for example should penalize you, and your egalitarianism should decay as a consequence of your inconsistent application of it.

 

[Empire of Terra Nova]

I think that your actions should reflect on your ethics. Being a fanatic egalitarian xenophobe for example should penalize you, and your egalitarianism should decay as a consequence of your inconsistent application of it.

i would favour that too as an engaging way to add (or expand) the rpg elements of the game (basically it would be like the lawful/chaotic system from kotor)

i even can think of, as i believe someone else already mentioned in this thread, a mechanic that would gradually change your ethics alignment depending on your actions; so if you acted in authoritarian manner too much for too long as an egalitarian your ethic would switch, same if you did that with the other 3 ethic pairs

 

[The Bored Chairman]

I think that your actions should reflect on your ethics. Being a fanatic egalitarian xenophobe for example should penalize you, and your egalitarianism should decay as a consequence of your inconsistent application of it.

Egalitarian =/= Xenophile.

You can be an Egalitarian Xenophobe. Citizens are all granted equal rights, but Xenos are not citizens according to this combination.

They are higher than animals, but lower than people in an empire like this.

 

[TrotBot]

Egalitarian =/= Xenophile.

You can be an Egalitarian Xenophobe. Citizens are all granted equal rights, but Xenos are not citizens according to this combination.

They are higher than animals, but lower than people in an empire like this.

sure, that's the mental summersaults that someone would have to do if they're an egalitarian inconsistently applying egalitarianism. but history shows that that decays your egalitarianism. and you get things like the return to the naked profit motive and mass privatization at the same time as the genocidal breakup of the yugoslavia. and who were the arms dealers who made it happen? former communist party officials, each in their own "national" bureaucracy and trying to get a better deal for "their" side and blaming the others for shortcomings. someone blames serbs, the serbs blame the others. they became millionaires privatizing the economy to themselves and lit the whole country on fire.

the "internationalism" on which yugoslavian federation could have worked was made impossible by the competition over who could steal the most from the pie. the contradiction of having a privileged bureaucracy while proclaiming fanatic egalitarianism (like say you run decadent instead of utopian abundant) has its own corrupting influences. and all of these things intertwine.

marx said "A nation cannot become free and at the same time continue to oppress other nations"

would be pretty cool to have some "corruption" happening because you have tried to zombie-like weld together slavery and privilege while claiming perfect equality. and some sort of opposite effect if you're actually living up to your ethics and trying to spread equality.

 

[InvisibleBison]

Spiritualism and Xenophobia are incompatible with good behavior on both a Kantian and Utilitarian analysis.

I see where Xenophobia fails the test, but what's wrong with Spiritualism?

 

[The Bored Chairman]

sure, that's the mental summersaults that someone would have to do if they're an egalitarian inconsistently applying egalitarianism. but history shows that that decays your egalitarianism. and you get things like the return to the naked profit motive and mass privatization at the same time as the genocidal breakup of the yugoslavia. and who were the arms dealers who made it happen? former communist party officials, each in their own "national" bureaucracy and trying to get a better deal for "their" side and blaming the others for shortcomings. someone blames serbs, the serbs blame the others. they became millionaires privatizing the economy to themselves and lit the whole country on fire.

the "internationalism" on which yugoslavian federation could have worked was made impossible by the competition over who could steal the most from the pie. the contradiction of having a privileged bureaucracy while proclaiming fanatic egalitarianism (like say you run decadent instead of utopian abundant) has its own corrupting influences. and all of these things intertwine.

marx said "A nation cannot become free and at the same time continue to oppress other nations"

would be pretty cool to have some "corruption" happening because you have tried to zombie-like weld together slavery and privilege while claiming perfect equality. and some sort of opposite effect if you're actually living up to your ethics and trying to spread equality.

I'd argue that's less applicable to Xenos though.

It's easier to treat them as something "other' compared to your own species, because they'll likely be completely different, not just in terms of appearance, but also mentally.

Sci-fi does a really bad job at properly portraying Xeno-relations because the only form of sapient life we can compare with is ourselves.

We are sociable creatures capable of empathy, so when we see people suffering, we are compelled to help them. A creature that has achieved sapience but is relatively isolated from others throughout its lifespan will likely not share that trait. It wouldn't be that they don't WANT to see Xenos as equals, but simply CAN'T.

 

[Cry_Havok]

I see where Xenophobia fails the test, but what's wrong with Spiritualism?

Spiritualists hate thinking machines and are forced to enslave or purge them.

 

[InvisibleBison]

Spiritualists hate thinking machines and are forced to enslave or purge them.

So what? "Thinking machines", as you call them, are just particularly well-designed computer programs. They're not people, they have no more moral status than a toaster oven. "Enslaving" a robot is no more immoral than driving a car, and "purging" a robot is no more immoral than throwing out a broken calculator.

Or so the spiritualists believe, anyway.

 

[Casko]

So what? "Thinking machines", as you call them, are just particularly well-designed computer programs. They're not people, they have no more moral status than a toaster oven. "Enslaving" a robot is no more immoral than driving a car, and "purging" a robot is no more immoral than throwing out a broken calculator.

Or so the spiritualists believe, anyway.

A better example may be to say something akin to "Hammer has no soul or divine spark" => "Robots are merely bigger hammers with 2 or more legs"

 

[TrotBot]

I'd argue that's less applicable to Xenos though.

It's easier to treat them as something "other' compared to your own species, because they'll likely be completely different, not just in terms of appearance, but also mentally.

Sci-fi does a really bad job at properly portraying Xeno-relations because the only form of sapient life we can compare with is ourselves.

We are sociable creatures capable of empathy, so when we see people suffering, we are compelled to help them. A creature that has achieved sapience but is relatively isolated from others throughout its lifespan will likely not share that trait. It wouldn't be that they don't WANT to see Xenos as equals, but simply CAN'T.

and that's the argument a xenophobe would make. and yet, any society based on slavery (whether xeno or otherwise) must lead to the decay of any egalitarian aspect it may have. just ask ancient greece how long their democracy lasted. or rome. so long as there are sentient beings crushed and enslaved by you, be it robots or xenos, you have rendered it possible to make people into less than. that door, once opened, consumes all. it was once not possible to do fanatic egalitarian xenophobe slavery, but now it is. all i'm asking is there be consequences. such a society should be riven by contradictions.

 

[Bezborg]

No. Please leave D&D out of Stellaris.

Laughs in elf, dwarf, gnome, orc, ogre, etc...

 

[The Bored Chairman]

and that's the argument a xenophobe would make. and yet, any society based on slavery (whether xeno or otherwise) must lead to the decay of any egalitarian aspect it may have. just ask ancient greece how long their democracy lasted. or rome. so long as there are sentient beings crushed and enslaved by you, be it robots or xenos, you have rendered it possible to make people into less than. that door, once opened, consumes all. it was once not possible to do fanatic egalitarian xenophobe slavery, but now it is. all i'm asking is there be consequences. such a society should be riven by contradictions.

Oh, I absolutely agree there should be consequences.

A revamp of internal politics is LONG overdue, imo.

 

[InvisibleBison]

just ask ancient greece how long their democracy lasted. or rome.

I don't think these examples really support your argument. Athenian democracy lasted for about three hundred years, while Roman democracy lasted for about five hundred years, and in neither case did the collapse of democracy stem from their practice of slavery. Also, it's pretty questionable whether either of them were egalitarian in Stellaris's terms, or whether Rome was xenophobic.

 

[The Bored Chairman]

I don't think these examples really support your argument. Athenian democracy lasted for about three hundred years, while Roman democracy lasted for about five hundred years, and in neither case did the collapse of democracy stem from their practice of slavery. Also, it's pretty questionable whether either of them were egalitarian in Stellaris's terms, or whether Rome was xenophobic.

Was Rome Xenophobic, though?

They assimilated people into their empire and were pretty tolerant of other cultures (at least initially), if I'm remembering my Ancient History classes properly. Citizenship was afforded to everyone who was free, I think.

 

[InvisibleBison]

Was Rome Xenophobic, though?

They assimilated people into their empire and were pretty tolerant of other cultures (at least initially), if I'm remembering my Ancient History classes properly. Citizenship was afforded to everyone who was free, I think.

Yes, that's what I was referencing when I said it was questionable if Rome was xenophobic. I apologize if my post was unclear.

Also I feel obliged to mention that the history of Roman citizenship is a bit more complicated than your recollections. The short version is, it was gradually expanded to ever-increasing groups of people until all free people were made citizens in the early 2nd century AD.

 

[Cry_Havok]

So what? "Thinking machines", as you call them, are just particularly well-designed computer programs. They're not people, they have no more moral status than a toaster oven. "Enslaving" a robot is no more immoral than driving a car, and "purging" a robot is no more immoral than throwing out a broken calculator.

Or so the spiritualists believe, anyway.

And they are empirically incorrect by game lore and mechanics.

I am also slightly irked by the fact you can't do a true liberation theology empire, but the Materialist-Spiritualist axis, and spiritualists in general, are SUPER poorly handled by Stellaris

 

[InvisibleBison]

And they are empirically incorrect by game lore and mechanics.

No they aren't.

 

[TrotBot]

my point about rome is that even the basic democracy it had could not survive the corrupting influence of slavery. i jumped from xenophobia to just straight up slavery. the point is caesarism was the inevitable consequence of a slave society in decay. at a certain point, it became necessary to build a bigger and bigger army to keep conquering slaves (and to put the slave revolts down) and this inevitably led to a strongman as the poison fruit of the class struggle impasse the republic ended up in. and yes, it lasted centuries, but so can the decline of empires in stellaris. i'm not asking for instant consequences. just long term. You can't maintain a democracy while naked use of force is the rule of law in every day life.

Another example would be a shadow council in a fanatic egalitarian society for example? should have some malices. Really you will end up an oligarchy essentially. Sure you can start the game as a "democracy", but there should be a danger of a growing authoritarian faction and an authoritarian coup, carried out by your shadow council itself.

And they are empirically incorrect by game lore and mechanics.

I am also slightly irked by the fact you can't do a true liberation theology empire, but the Materialist-Spiritualist axis, and spiritualists in general, are SUPER poorly handled by Stellaris

yeah, i would love for spiritualism to not always mean anti-AI.