It's really not a big deal as I'll probably mod this out but I'm curious to know the reasoning. I understand oligarchy as a requirement but unmodded, I can't create a mega Corp with wage slaves.
Why is the Corporate Dominion civic bound to egalitarian?
- Thread starter Cat_Fuzz
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Probably because Egalitarian used to be Individualist and Individualist loosely meant embracing free market capitalism.
I think it might be because using money as a means of status is much more egalitarian than it might seem. In an authoritarian society, a slave might never be able to escape their fate, because the values of their society. While a wage slave in a mega corporation could theoretically buy their own freedom if they acquired the necessary wealth. And if wealth is the only metric status goes by, that is actually fairly egalitarian, overlooking things like lineage, race, gender, etc in favor of a value that is often a good measure of how productive/intelligent/influential an individual is. Even if someone acquires wealth the easy way, it is just as likely for them to lose it all if they are incompetent.
Last edited:
Yea this might explain it, but I do feel like its something limiting - especially when the link before was tenuous at best.
But what if your baseline class are so poor that they effectively become assets? At that point you're talking slavery, buying and selling the best tool to complete the tasks at hand. The elite stay at the top and use wealth and influence to keep it that way. That sounds pretty authoritarian.
yeah, linking it to Materialist would work way better; it would fit the stereotype of "Religious principles prevent greed" or whatever to have Spiritualist be the side of the ethics wheel that disables it.
I don't think Corporate Dominion should be locked to any ethic at all (though obviously locking it to the Oligarchy authority makes sense). I mean, profit is profit. If I was going to make any ethics-based locks, I'd say that it should exclude any fanatic ethic.
Might as well ask why only hiveminds can be ascetic. The civics are new, it's going to take a while before all of them make sense.
Yeah, I would definitely prefer it to be uncoupled from any ethos. Corporations are in no way inherently connected to egalitarianism and frequently act against it. While I can sort of see it being tied to materialism, that's still a poor fit--look at companies like Hobby Lobby that have a distinct religious aspect to them.
Last edited:
A lot of religions are in fact big corporations, if you look at them with sharp eyes. So tying it to materialism isnt ideal either.
Probably because Authoritarians tend to screw up the Corporates (as their word is law and they can do whatever they please), whereas Democracies and Oligarchies are easier to influence by the corporations. If an Autocracy tried to have such a system, either the Autocrat would eventually crush them to get their riches, or if a capitalist is the autocrat, he would transform himself into an Imperialist and just crush the other Corporates.
I definitely agree that it's a bit weird for Corporate Dominions to require egalitarian. If nothing else, Stellaris prides itself on making it possible to play (or defy) every major sci-fi trope out there. And the evil slaver trader megacorp is a well-established one -- see the Korx of Galactic Civilizations or the Druuge of Star Control, just off the top of my head. Those are corporate dominions, surely, but would demand non-fanatic authoritarian, in both flavor and gameplay.
Yeah, I thought the point of renaming individualism/collectivism was in large to avoid confusing comparison to capitalism/communism that just didn't make sense in the context of the game. In that aspect this feels like a step back (or rather a foot remaining in place since the expansion isn't released yet...)
Yes you could make this argument for requiring a non authoritarian ethic for the civic, or needing an oligarchic government. Although you could easily argue that the autocrat is just a puppet/front guy for corporate interests. on that same line I see a corporate dominion represent a few powerful corporations using their power (be it through a private army installing a puppet, through some sort of sci-fi guild system, or through campaign funding/lobbyism in a democracy) to maintain the status quo. This would leave very little room for actual egalitarianism, although probably plenty of it in the state rhetoric.
I guess what I am trying to get at is that the civic is justifiable with basically every in game government/ethos except possibly fanatic authoritarian/egalitarian. So yes the design decision is weird. Or maybe I am understanding the civic wrong, could be that to.
Yes you could make this argument for requiring a non authoritarian ethic for the civic, or needing an oligarchic government. Although you could easily argue that the autocrat is just a puppet/front guy for corporate interests. on that same line I see a corporate dominion represent a few powerful corporations using their power (be it through a private army installing a puppet, through some sort of sci-fi guild system, or through campaign funding/lobbyism in a democracy) to maintain the status quo. This would leave very little room for actual egalitarianism, although probably plenty of it in the state rhetoric.
I guess what I am trying to get at is that the civic is justifiable with basically every in game government/ethos except possibly fanatic authoritarian/egalitarian. So yes the design decision is weird. Or maybe I am understanding the civic wrong, could be that to.
yes, that's true, but if this Civic's availability has to be tied to an Ethos(and to my knowledge all Civics ate tried to either an ethos or the government's leadership type, so that way they can become non-functional if those stop being part of their government), then that's the closest to making sense.
I agree that on a philosophical level it does not make sense to tie corporations to egalitarianism. Materialism, if any of the existing ethics. But there may be a game play balance reason for restricting the +10% energy bonus to egalitarian empires. Not immediately clear to me what that would be, just hypothesizing that that might be the case.
It may be meant to compensate somewhat for the fact that individualists currently get a bonus to energy which they are losing in Banks. But on the other hand, it seems odd to restrict it to oligarchies if that's the idea.
Flavourwise it seems like this civic is supposed to be the replacement for the Plutocratic Oligarchy / Mega Corporation government type, which is not restricted to individualists...
Probably the only new civic that gives me pause. The only limitation for Corporate Dominion should be that it is oligarchic only. Not sure how this might affect game balance (i.e., should we allow oligarchic Fanatical Purifiers w/ Corporate Dominion?), but binding that civic to egalitarian ethics, or *sourcing* it from egalitarian ethics, raises a *lot* of questions... That "Egalitarian" is not "Individualist," that the game itself draws this distinction in the update, should be enough to consider disassociating egalitarian ethics from that civic.
Last edited:
It's definitely the weirdest, but I'm not sure I really get the requirements on Citizen Service either.