Talk:Ethics

Assessment

B - This article is considered a B-class article on the wiki quality scale

Tables?

I think it's better to arrange the ethos and government types in tables.

For example:

---

Collectivist vs. Individualist

Collectivist Fanatic	Collectivist	Neutral	Individualist	Individualist Fanatic
100% modificator −100% modificator	50% modificator −50% modificator	no modificators	50% modificator −50% modificator	100% modificator −100% modificator

---

This allows any reader to quickly compare the effects of each ethos and government type. We may need small thumbnails of the icons in the table headers, either to add them to the table header texts or to replace them.

I don't think we need to include the description text for each ethos. They are needed in-game for lore and immersion but not on the wiki. *Aqua* (talk) 11:51, 20 October 2015 (CEST)

Yes this is the best course of action in the long run. Although, what do you think on matrices? I plan something akin to this. KaTiON (talk) 15:14, 20 October 2015 (CEST)

I just set up a demo page here: http://www.stellariswiki.com/User:*Aqua*/Ethos_WIP What do you think about that? I believe it's close to what you have in mind. I also left out the government types. 15 types demand a big table or something different (we'll have to test out what's best) and they'll probably have a different influence on a game than ethics. *Aqua* (talk) 15:24, 20 October 2015 (CEST)

Yeah something like that but it feels a bit disorganized for me, what do you think about this? This will eliminates all headers by grouping them into a single table. KaTiON (talk) 15:52, 20 October 2015 (CEST)

It looks much more cleaner than my version. :) Unfortunately it doesn't make a distinction between opposite ethics. People might assume that for example they can select Pacifist and Militarist at the same time. Also I would change the description row into a "Allows/disallows government type" row. *Aqua* (talk) 16:13, 20 October 2015 (CEST)

I included your formatting idea into my WIP version. I had to wrestle with mediawiki until I got a visible gap between the ethics which doesn't look too horrible. Without a gap you pretty much immediately get lost in the table. What do you think of it now? (Ignore that Moral Democracy is probably wrong at it's current place.) *Aqua* (talk) 20:22, 20 October 2015 (CEST)

Can't say I really like the look of that. ~ Meneth (talk) 20:23, 20 October 2015 (CEST)

Then I have no idea how to format it so it a) is easily readable and b) contains all important information. :( *Aqua* (talk) 20:28, 20 October 2015 (CEST)

I've asked a moderator to give his feedback. We should be able to come up with something decent looking. ~ Meneth (talk) 20:32, 20 October 2015 (CEST)

(Unindent) There's an awful lot of information here potentially, now we don't know the final content but we can make some guesses. I feel the ethos types will be big enough and will be the content of one big and popular article. The government forms may well be on a different page. I unlike Meneth, like Aqua's newest approach but would make several changes.

1. I am in the mood to hang people who use fixed width tables, the wiki software can auto adjust widths and it is much more adaptable than a few numbers. Around 20-25% of users are on mobile/tablet devices and when the mobile plugin is installed in the next big update, I'd like to be able to view things on the smaller screen.
2. A name for each ethic would break the table up into sections, sections that may be fleshed out with text later on. This may mean fixed widths have to be used, but only if necessary and not as a first option. We have people who play PDX games on horizontal resolutions from 1024 to 2560px widths, the amount of content on a line could be more than doubled. Also these names would be useful anchor points for articles linking in.
3. Replacing unknown with a simple dash would be better looking Dauth (talk) 21:49, 20 October 2015 (CEST)

Right, simplest way to do it is the original way (displayed on this page), except dropping "neutral" in the middle, and adding a row for government types. And sticking the icons in the table itself, of course. ~ Meneth (talk) 23:08, 20 October 2015 (CEST)

Ok, I reverted to the first WIP and added what you suggested. What do you think about it now? I added some random stuff to pacifist/militarist to see what a fully filled table will look like. I also made two versions of it differing in the goverments row. Unfortunately I don't know how to get rid of the surplus borders. Because I'm not a native English speaker please have a look at the wording too. ;) *Aqua* (talk)

I like the second Pacifist/Militarist table, the only thing I'd change is stopping the line from getting right up to Government, essentially remove the line between locks and unlocks. Dauth (talk) 10:19, 21 October 2015 (CEST)

After a bit of fiddling I got rid of the border between locks and unlocks. The user Lillebror added a version with background color and slightly bigger icons (20px instead of 16px). IMHO that's too much. Which is better? Colored or uncolored? 16px icons or 20px? *Aqua* (talk) 12:44, 21 October 2015 (CEST)

20px looks better.

If we're to use color, I'd further reduce their intensity so that it'd be more subtle. ~ Meneth (talk) 12:47, 21 October 2015 (CEST)

The icons within the tables are now 20px, in chapter titles they are 24px. Also rearranged tables and formatted the ones I left out before. The background color saturation is now halved. Now I like it. I see the light at the end of the tunnel. <3 *Aqua* (talk) 13:42, 21 October 2015 (CEST)

The version with colour in is very nice, do we need the darker grey bars above locks and unlocks rows? I'd prefer icons to be similar size to the text, though this is a broader comment. Dauth (talk) 16:26, 21 October 2015 (CEST)

The bars are part of the mildtable class. The other wikis have them too (examples). I think we shouldn't make the icons smaller. Especially the goverment icons will be too small to see any differences between them. For example there are three democracy governments which have almost the same icon.

@Meneth, are there other table classes which could be suitable? *Aqua* (talk) 18:14, 21 October 2015 (CEST)

(Unindent) There's no table classes beyond wikitable and mildtable AFAIK. ~ Meneth (talk) 18:17, 21 October 2015 (CEST)

Here's version #4. I removed the tables without red/green backcolored cell. Again there're two versions, one wit top borders in each cells, one without borders. I'm not sure which I prefer. This time I would like to copy the one you like most into the real ethos article if there are no major concerns left. *Aqua* (talk) 00:17, 22 October 2015 (CEST)

I prefer the second set and I'm more than happy for you to copy them into the article. Do we have a source for the extra content you've added to the tables or will some be removed? Dauth (talk) 08:58, 22 October 2015 (CEST)

I'm glad you like it. :) We only know about xenophile and pacifist effects. The rest is made-up stuff I'll remove. *Aqua* (talk) 13:22, 22 October 2015 (CEST)

I made some kind of cheat sheet for Ethos and Govs, maybe someone could find use of it or make a better looking one ;) --GilgaMelchi (talk) 06:22, 17 May 2016 (CEST)

(Unindent) Careful with the table mania, there are so many outright errors presented in them its crazy. Lots of numbers on this page appear plucked from midair (xenophobe is not -10/-20 but -20/-40) Almost all ethical divergence buildings have the wrong dovergence values and so on. I want to edit it but cant open my game upå to verify things. Check. Your. Sources!! your ssouyrce should never be footage of someone playing the pre-release builds, download the latest and actually do your work Celem (talk) 09:36, 24 May 2016 (CEST)

The wiki has been live since before the game was released so a significant amount of the available data is from pre-release and may have been changed. At times altering the table formats does not necessarily entails re-checking data, but is done to allow for better presentation of the current information or/and for ease of future maintenance. Lastly, do try to remember that the moderators and regular editors do this out of their free time and will and not being paid for it. Some better phrased comments would be more welcoming [applies to both your comments]. ~ SolSys (talk) 10:38, 24 May 2016 (CEST)

Xenophobe is +10/+20 xenophobia in the faction creation menu in the current version of the game (1.0.3), it's just that it is only a factor, then some modifiers are applied to that factor depending on who is judging who. Some empires might get a -20/-40 to relations or -10/-20 depending on their AI type and ethos. Some pops will get a -5/-10 or -10/-20 happiness when working with other xenos or when being ruled by a xeno leader (if the pop is xenophobic).

Though I have to agree, I don't know who modified the Pacifist effects but they might have put beta test values instead of current version values there. Pacifist is "Maximum embassies : +1/+2, rivalry influence : -25%/-50%, army damage : -10%/-20%, food : +10%/+20%, war happiness : -10%/-20%", it is not "growth time : -15%/-30%". GilgaMelchi (talk) 10:33, 28 May 2016 (CEST)

Missing icons

Could someone with the skills and software extract the ethic icons from the screenshot? Or do we get them from Paradox? *Aqua* (talk) 13:44, 21 October 2015 (CEST)

I'll be seeing about acquiring icons this week or the next. ~ Meneth (talk) 13:51, 21 October 2015 (CEST)

Precedence of sources

It is my understanding that the PC Gamer Weekender is a more recent build than the one Quill18 got to play (see, for instance, Quill18 being told that there will eventually be a better battle interface, and the one in the PC Gamer footage being much more informative). This post explicitly says that Quill18 had an old build.

So, while Quill18's footage may be more recent for us, I don't believe we should trust its numbers in the one spot they conflict with the Weekender footage. -GC13 (talk) 22:42, 16 March 2016 (CET)

Ethos-Granted Buildings?

Would that be appropriate content for this page? Maybe something like this for an example:

Type	Effects	Description
Fanatic Collectivist	+100%  slavery tolerance −10%  food consumption Can build a  Ministry of Benevolence, which grants −15%  ethics divergence empire-wide.	The purpose of the individual is simple; strengthen the collective. To enter the blackness of space we move as one, and we shall not be weakened by wanton separatism.

Maybe also include the edicts fanatic ethos grant in the same way, but I'm pretty bad at wiki editing so it was a stretch just to get that one example of a building right >.> — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.141.71.155 (Talk) 06:41, 21 May 2016‎ (CEST)

This could be a good idea, but there is so much that each etho grants (and sometimes locks away) that it would become cumbersome in such a small summary table. Maybe if we had a specific page for each etho explaining event resolutions, policies allowed, research bonus/malus etc. then it would be cool. GilgaMelchi (talk) 15:26, 31 May 2016 (CEST)

Ethics Divergence in Sector

It appears there is a unlisted +10% Ethics Divergence effect called "Managed by Sector", on any pop of every planet in a Sector.

Unfortunatley it appears the table in the article is only a inline link of some sort. I am not sure how to modify the source table.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.77.219.20 (Talk) 13:02, 23 May 2016‎ (CET)

Added. Thanks. Stigni (talk) 14:54, 23 May 2016 (CEST)

table is littered with errors anyway. Please dont add this sort of thing without checking! (i.e. of the 4 buildings listed at -20% ethical divergence. none are correct. None of those grant -20%.) Check your sources! Celem (talk) 09:31, 24 May 2016 (CEST)

On both comments, its almost like this is a wiki and people can make changes to it. By far the fastest way to get correct data is to write it, not complain about it. Dauth (talk) 09:42, 24 May 2016 (CEST)

Dont be a child I have the data, or i wopuldnt know it to be wrong....I cant edit this right now, but someone is going to all the work of formatting up these tables but not of verifying the data. I'll just leave you to it, no will to assist anymore funnily Celem (talk) 09:49, 24 May 2016 (CEST)

On one previous version they are all listed at +10%, I made an error on copy and paste; I didn't recheck because I thought that the page was correct. Stigni (talk) 10:02, 24 May 2016 (CEST)

Ethics divergence table

There's a typo in the table where it says "Puppet Governament" - there shouldn't be an A in government, but I can't correct the table. CrisH7 (talk) 13:42, 19 June 2016 (CEST)

The tables are part of the {{Bonus table}} template. It helps us keep them up to date as they're sourced from one location. If you spot any errors that's where you go to fix them too. SolSys has fixed this bug now. Dauth (talk) 18:12, 19 June 2016 (CEST)

Special Effects

I could more add more informations regarding the hidden effects of ethos like this:

• Cannot use all democratic and autocratic governments.
• Can research , , and .
• Has bonus chance to get (1.25), (1.5x), (2x) tech cards.

it would look like this:

Type	Effects	Special Effects	Description
Fanatic Collectivist	−30% Faction Suppression Cost (empire modifier) +100%  Slavery Tolerance (pop modifier) −15%  Food Consumption (pop modifier)	Cannot use all democratic and autocratic governments. Can research , , and . Has bonus chance to get (1.25), (1.5x), (2x) tech cards.	The purpose of the individual is simple; strengthen the collective. To enter the blackness of space we move as one, and we shall not be weakened by wanton separatism.

etc what do you think guys? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tzt1z (Tzt1z) 12:16, 24 October 2016‎ (CEST

Above change was made by Tzt1z and he messed up the table formating a bit. Could somebody else who understand the Format fix that please? thanks. Also please do not forget to add your Signature at the end, using the Wiki Formating as under help

We discussed that above under "Ethos-Granted Buildings?". Basic consensus back then was that it was too much data for the table, even just with the Buildings. Sometimes a ethos is a Lockout, sometimes not having a Ethos is a lockout. Governments already have a seperate page, so do Technology and Buildings. It would basically just be redundant information either here or there. We should propably make a link to the proper articles if not already done.

--The Founder (talk) 12:42, 24 October 2016 (CEST)

[Unindented] Since I'm not aware of the circumstances I've fixed the table for the deleted comment for the time being. In the future, please refrain from editing other users comments unless asked to by the user [not including signatures and the like]. Considering the short time frame between the two actions the user may have retracted the comment due to change of mind or other reasons. Thanks. ~ SolSys (talk) 15:38, 24 October 2016 (CEST)

Weights

These have been added for each ethic. However, there is no explanation as to what "weights" are. Feel there needs to be some explanation otherwise it simply feels like some modifiers have been dumped on the page without enough consideration to readers - especially new players --PaulMClem (talk) 12:45, 11 April 2017 (CEST)

I don't know enough about the specifics of hidden mechanics, but I know roughly more or less what it is so I'll give a quick (impromptu) redress of the weights element on the page. Falyreas (talk) 07:24, 12 April 2017 (CEST)

Ethos v Ethic

Someone mentioned on the forum that in-game it is never referred to as an Ethos, always an Ethic. If so we should probably change this page to fit. Thoughts? --PaulMClem (talk) 23:21, 12 April 2017 (CEST)

Nah, we don't need to. The article itself actually explains the terminology and the differencing between them in its lede actually (unless someone removed it). Here, I'll go check to make sure again. Will post again if it's different. -- Falyreas (talk) 20:43, 13 April 2017 (CEST)

To me the following two sentences are an incorrect use of the word "ethos":

"Every empire is limited in the amount of ethos it can possess. In general it's possible to either have three different moderate ethos types or one fanatical ethos and one moderate one"

An ethos is the fundamental character or spirit of a culture. It is rarely one thing - it's an overall accumulation of various cultural traits, or indeed ethics. As such the phrase "amount of ethos" doesn't make sense. You have an ethos, it has no amount, only what it is made up of. In Stellaris you can have several ethics. The sum of these ethics is in effect your overall ethos --PaulMClem (talk) 17:42, 14 April 2017 (CEST)

You are correct. Good catch. I more or less always perceived that portion of the page as being off, just never bothered to take the time to change it. Will take a look now and see what needs changing. -- Falyreas (talk) 01:26, 15 April 2017 (CEST)

I've edited the page to refer to ethics instead of ethos. Ethics is what is used in the game, and it's odd to arbitrarily rename a game term. Ethos isn't really used in the right way anyway. "Amount of ethos"?--Aequinoctis (talk) 23:23, 28 October 2017 (CEST)

I've added a move template to the article. I haven't made the ethos->ethics change in other articles, because I didn't want to create a bunch of redirects or piped links before this page is moved.--Aequinoctis (talk) 16:51, 29 October 2017 (CET)

Ethics Changes

FYI, in 2.0 and later at least, the formula has changed. I got a game where an NPC empire has fanatic egalitarian, fanatic militarist, and xenophobe. It would thus appear that unless you adopt an opposite ethic, or have less than 3, ethics won't disssapear. So if you are Fanatic Materialist and Militarist for example. Embracing a pacifist would replace militarist with pacifist, because they are opposing ethics. But if you embrace a xenophile faction, it will add xenophile. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LogicMage (talk) 23:31, 6 April 2018 (CEST)

That Ethics do not disapear or NPC get to many on Liberation is a bug, plain and simple. 3 has been the design Limit since the earliest verisons. Everything - down to AI personalities - can not cope with 4 or more Ethics points. --The Founder (talk) 13:29, 7 April 2018 (CEST)

Please do not randomly change the page version!

This is not the first time that someone changed the page version to 2.2, me checking back - and finding that the page was not updated to 2.2!

Just because no change is explicitly mentioned does not mean none happened. For example, every check that uses "Defensive Pact or Federation" now is "Defensive Pact, Federation or Commercial Pact". Players not getting unexpected Ethics attraction is the reason we have that listing. And wheter commercial pact falls under the same umbrella as defense pact/Federation, migration pact or soemthing else entirely is a huge difference. As does the fact that subjects (of anyone) do not cause the migration related attraction anymore (I am uncertain if that was true before)

Please do changes properly - section for subsection if need be - or not at all. A wiki that does not contain the real inforamtion is pointless at best, harmfull at worst ("but the wiki says"). I will roll back the page version to 2.1 and add some subsection tags.

--The Founder (talk) 13:03, 9 December 2018 (CET)

"Impoverished Living Standards"

It's not clear what's meant by this term, and it seems to me like it's outdated considering that nothing in the living standards section refers to it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.52.108.48 (talk) 22:33, 13 April 2019 UTC.

Population Ethics Effects

It is stated that populations each have a single ethic. But there is no mention of what that means in terms of bonuses or penalties to the player. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AngleWyrm (talk) 20:30, 8 April 2020‎ UTC.

The only effect is that it determines which faction will the pop eventually join. I added a small note about it just now. Kami-sama (talk) 19:27, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Spiritualist/Materialist meaning

I don't see any sources for what the ethics mean, so I'm working under the assumption that an individual or the community just agreed on those definitions. The idea that materialism/spiritualism is about "whether the unknowns of the universe can be explained by science or the existence of something greater" is not correct. Materialism is a branch of philosophy that states that everything is ultimately explained by material interactions. This includes the idea that consciousness and one's "self" are nothing more than chemical processes in one's brain. This is opposed to spiritualism, another branch of philosophy that supports the idea of an immaterial reality, something "beyond" matter and energy. Due to how closely these ethics are tied to AI rights in-game, I believe this was the intention.

In short, I propose that the materialism/spiritualism axis be described as "looks at whether consciousness is the result of a collection of physical interactions or if it involves something greater".

See http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spiritualism_(philosophy) and http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Materialism

Ethics attraction due to Bureaucratic Surveillance and being an subject is missing

The ethics attraction to overlord fanatic ethics from Bureaucratic Surveillance (galactic community) is missing in this article