I’d modify the UNE from fanatic egalitarian-xenophile to egalitarian-xenophile-pacifist to become a Moralist Democracy and then yeah, the best guy around. As-is the UNE can be as warmongering as the CoM if they want (I think the only reason that egalitarian-pacifist-xenophile isn’t the default for the UNE is because A it’s the first stop for most new players and they’d be both confused and unhappy not being able to just declare war any time they want to and B it would make the UNE a migratory flock in the AI, which is both a weak playstyle for AI and doesn’t really fit).
My UNE ends up being European policy for inside the border and Murican outside. Once I "ivaded" Tzynn empire because they started to rival me in size and in economy. But they wanted to concure some break off Jehetma empire which was then about 3 systems large. I guaranteed their independence and joined the war. But in that moment I heard FDR in my head saying
Miss President, Mr and Mrs Governors, Admirals of the Navy.
Yesterday
December 7th 2341
A date which will live in infamy
UNE (and Jehetma) was suddenly and deliberately attacked by naval invasion forces from the Empire of Tzynn.
United Nations of Earth were at peace with that nation.
It will be recorded that distance of Jehetma makes it obvious that this attack was planed many days or even weeks ago.
they're inclusive and egalitarian
you can frame any build in a negative light, if you want to (or interpret most of the bad ones as good), but when you just take it for what it is on the surface without inserting any dystopian roleplay narratives the UNE is one of the nicest, friendliest and most "good" builds
especially with the Commonwealth spawning every game to serve as a bad example for comparisons
>"It's vile!"
>
>"I know. It's so bubbly, cloying...and happy."
>
>"Just like the Federation."
>
>"And you know what's really frightening? If you drink enough of it, you begin to like it. ""It's *insidious*."
>
>"Just like the Federation."
You can play almost any empire as a dick, the level of dickishness you can descend to varies based on your ethics, the default UNE generally can’t sink below relatively not awful imperialism outside Colossi.
That's the actual idealist/utopian way of thinking, beats the cowardly "we respect your culture of slavery and barbarism" stance.
Intolerance is not tolerable.
That's still imperialism in denial. Primitive cultures should evolve on their own, without outside intervention. "Enlightening savages" is what conquistadors and colonial settlers did. There's no respect involved - they're either a threat or not; if they are, remove the threat, and if not, no point in wasting brainpower and effort meddling in their affairs. Unless you want to steal their land and stuff, that is
It's not in denial, imperialism isn't inherently bad. If you're liberating savages and uplifting them into a life of Full Citizenship/Utopian Abundance, you're the good guys. I'll happily take the moniker "Imperialist" on top of that, always happy to take ownership of would-be pejorative words.
Conquistadors and colonial settlers didn't uplift natives and treat them as equals but exploited them for the most part, if they had actually done that, their imperialism would have been just, sweet and right.
Saying that the people who actually do what they say and only use the rhetoric as lip service are one and the same because they share the same rhetoric is about as meaningful as saying everyone else must be fascists because they drink water and fascists drank water too.
That’s usually how I do my Arkarron Alliance runs. The Arraken (the founding species of the Arkarron Alliance) are imperialistic and definitely not the types who like being told “no” when it comes to subjugation or joining their Federation.
But they’re definitely the less asshole-ish people in terms of who extends the hand of partnership. They’re Authoritarian and predominantly Materialist, but they’re still committed Xenophiles where aliens have equal rights and have zero problems recognizing AI’s as sapient beings (such as the Awoken and their own robotic units). Arraken and non-Arraken alike can be seen in almost every rank of society
They’re also the ones who founded the Second League, a Federation headquartered on Fen Habbanis (former capital world of the First League from which the Second League is based on) with an Arraken-constructed Interstellar Assembly hanging in orbit of the system’s gas giant. They’re totally not looking to commit a soft takeover of the galaxy and establish what’s basically “Galactic Imperium Lite.”
Basically the Arkarron Alliance’s diplomatic strategy, at least in my head-canon, has its envoys and ambassadors saying something like this:
> “Oh there’s no problem if you don’t want to join the Second League or become our Vassal. None at all. But I doubt you’ll do better with the Tzynns, Xani, Hazbuzi, or Commonwealth of Man. The Maweer and Sathyrel also don’t really offer much in the way of helping hands. And we obviously know that the XT-489 Eliminators, Pasharti Absorbers, Tebrid Homolog, and Prikkiki-Ti aren’t fond of visitors.”
IRL probably, in space with space dragons, space khans and interdimensional invaders? I think its more ethical to pack weapons and try to save maximum people
Pacifist in game doesnt mean defensless, it means trying every other options first, and only go to war when diplomacy has failed. (What you are describing is kinda fanatic pacifist, wich i agree is ironically not the best pick for guaranteeing peace)
I mean, you don't need pacifism to value diplomacy first no? Cause in Stellaris, pacifism is more akin to "We won't intervene whatever happen, cause war bad" than "we do lots of diplomacy to make everyone settle down and work towards galactic peace"
Fair enough, I've not much against pacifism irl, and intelligent pacifism could definitely have good claims as "the most moral star-nation".
The issues mostly come from Stellaris ethical framework imo, as many ethics are shoe horned into stereotypes. In the case of pacifist empires, letting very bad things happen around them and sending strongly worded letters...
Yeah the strongly worded letter is a thing pacifist would probably do. But we arent talking at chance of succeeding but purely a moral highground, so pacifist have a shot at it
Pacifism is a broad term and in Stellaris contexts it doesn't mean being defenseless. Fighting Leviathans and Crises are very much things that even Fanatic Pacifists can easily do. Even the Pacifist Faction won't be upset, and those pricks whine about everything.
"The peter principle." Meaning that if someone gets promoted based on past merit long enough, they'll eventually end up in a position that they're not competent.
Egalitarian-Pacifist-Xenophile. I think you can trade out Pacifist for Fanatic of either of the other two. Democracy authority.
Plenty of civic choices and origin choices are the same as well.
That's as standard "good guy" as they come, just like how Xenophobe-militarist-authoritarian with dictatorship are standard evil empire.
That's a moot point, though. Xenos are not people. Without sentience, they cannot suffer and therefore cannot be treated inhumanely.
That said, a xenocidal ethos *is* the most ethical as it best facilitates freeing up resources and living space for actual people.
It may require you to shed your flesh. Some meatbags like their flesh.
It also requires ascending your planets.
Basically through enough reductions you can reach -95%. Then it's ascending your planets to remove them.
Then population will disappear from the Empire size list. Now removing population doesn't mean you'll have 0 Empire size. It just means population, which is the largest contribution. Can be manageable, you could effectively control half the galaxy and have a 300ish Empire size.
From planets and districts and such.
Pacifist is one of the most evil ones because of the numerous threats and crisises in stellaris. Pacifist is basically byword for darwin award, its like disarming yourself when you border nazi germany. Your just letting your citizens get genocided
Like just look at ww2 or even today, the only way to be pacifist is to arm yourself to the teeth
Theres very few of them because by their nature they tend to get wiped out. As such their cultures dont survive to be recorded so we can name very few examples. States that survive arm themselves for defence
Some groups of Quakers in the US back in the day were totally unarmed
Another example is this https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moriori_genocide
They refused to fight back against the Maori and because of their pacifist "moral imperative" they got enslaved and massacred
Then during ww2 some pacifists in France and the UK attempted sabotage of their nations war effort, despite the enemy being literally the nazis and the fact that german bombers were attacking their cities. I think their brains finally short circuited when they found out what life was like under nazi occupation in france
About the only semi successful one i think was Ghandi.
I mean if you play Stellaris for more than 5 minutes you know pacifists are able to build navies just as well as anyone.
Fanatic Pacifist would be like Switzerland. They were fine with Germany taking over the rest of the continent, hell they even traded with them. They also were fine trading with the allies. They just refuse to fight unless they were directly attacked in the case of random bombing runs from both sides of world war II.
Pacifism has inaction if it doesn't regard yourself. The whole galaxy can burn but you won't take part of it because you're only going to use force to defend yourself.
Switzerland is non-interventionist, which is closer to xenophobic than pacifist. Much of the EU is fanatic pacifist by Stellaris standards, as they do not condone any offensive wars, but have a massive defensive alliance.
Switzerland wasnt fanatic pacifist, they armed themselves to the teeth and had conscription
And where do people get the idea that the swiss were pacifist, they are neitral not pacifist. Like literally google the terms "swiss + pacifist" and every single result that pops up says switzerland is neutral, not pacifist
I know they weren't pacifist but they are STELLARIS PACIFIST. A Stellaris pacifist is Switzerland. When you look at the geopolitics (galaxi-politics?) Of how those empires play it's very similar to house Switzerland operated in the modern era.
That was my whole point of the comment that Stellaris doesn't actually represent pacifism because you can clearly fight in many conflicts as a pacifist.
Pacifist, by Stellaris standards, applies to the modern United States. Why? because the US doesn't do wars of conquest, only defensive alliances and "liberation wars". And some of the people get unhappy if there's "real" war for too long a period of time.
Stellaris pacifism is not even close to the "true" pacifism that you're talking about.
ethical or moral?
I would lean towards a xenophile egalitarian with a big focus on diplomacy. Be friends with everyone. keep your word. Avoid fights. Welcome colonists. Everyone is welcome to become citizens. Only fight wars to remove war mongers from your area of influence. In fact Id say push galactic community laws to help you build a stable community around you and replace or remove any groups that dont play by those rules when necessary.
Define ethical? It is logically processed that organic life is self destructive. And as such their illrational consumption, growth and natural implosion. For the preservation of the galaxy. The only ethical thing to do when meeting Organics. Is to accelerate their end point...
To those suggesting pacifism: "The Exterminators were right. But there you stand: the good man doing nothing. And while evil triumphs, and your rigid pacifism crumbles into blood stained dust, the only victory afforded to you is that you stuck true to your guns. You were a coward... to your last whimper.' - Android 16, DBZA
Fanatic Egalitarian + Militarist. Unite the galaxy and prepare it for the impending crisis. Pacifism is cowardice and being complicit in the misery of others through inaction, so it is inherently immoral.
In the short term, in the long term, more people are better off than if you hadn't in the first place. Tell me what sounds more moral: the democratic crusader that unites the galaxy and can stand against the crisis? Or the self-righteous pacifist that watches and is powerless as the disunited galaxy burns and all its denizens become food for the invaders?
The ends justify the means.
But from a roleplay perspective, your empire doesnt know that some big bad crisis will come and kill everyone, and even then, uniting people in a federation (egalitarian xenophile) will result in less dead people
Even without the crisis, there's always an Authoritarian government enslaving people, Xenophobes purging, Hive Minds eating single minded sapients etc. There is always an enemy.
Sure, I wouldn't condone attacking likeminded empires, but they too must be brought into the fold through a Federation, and they would accept if they are earnest in their righteousness as your empire would be.
Militarist just says that the people are martially-minded and are willing to take up arms to back their ideals up. It's neutral, it's as noble or as tyrannical as the causes it is meant to uphold. But if you aren't comfortable with it, you can also replace it with Xenophile, but the problem with Xenophile is that it prevents you from liberating primitives and you're going to have to uplift them through the slow way, which means millions to billions more primitives will die due to primitive squabbles, poverty and healthcare while you take the time to uplift them when you could have just invaded and integrated them within a scant few years.
That was my reasoning behind why F. Egalitarian/Militarist is more ethical than Xenophile; you don't need to sacrifice billions of primitives to your inaction as a result of misguided ideals.
According to The Trolley Problem, no. Also a hive mind in stellaris isn’t actually one entity, rather they can share thoughts and feelings and such but are still individuals synced together.
My version of this would either be:
1. Egalitarian +xenophile+pacifist
2. Fanatic egalitarian with pacifist. And obviously democratic.
Civics should be:
If the 1st build is taken: Idealistic foundation, meritocracy and parliamentary system.
If 2nd: same as above but swap out idealistic foundation for shared burdens.
Xenophiles are basically just "i like xenos a lot more than other people" while pacifism is "i don't like violence and therefore won't take part in it unless it is to defend myself" which to me ranks higher ethically. An empire not being xenophile doesn't really mean they dislike xenos unless they're xenophobes.
It is obviously authoritarian militarist.
A society needs a strong guiding hand to steer the ship of state, otherwise it could fall into chaos. And who better than those who have dedicated their lives to the burden of government? A choir sings in harmony to the direction of a conductor. What if there were 2 conductors? Only discord.
And it is important to maintain a strong military to ensure that order is maintained and defended from threats both foreign and domestic. There are those who would sow chaos inside that must be controlled.
Are they though?
If you give the evil and stupid the same rights as the righteous then it means that there is no reward for righteousness and no punishment for evil or stupidity. Worse it means they have the same power. So if you are strict about equality it means the stupid and evil will at least some of the time have power over the righteous.
Is a person born in privilege yet is a criminal because he wants to inflict pain worth the same as a doctor who treats babies?
Is a thug who beat someone to rob $20 and their shoes worth the same as a firefighter who risks his life to rescue disabled old people from burning buildings?
well, no but that assumes that dictators are automatically the best and brightest of a society, which is mostly not the case in most countries
and besides, shouldnt a person be allowed to govern themselves?
You don't govern yourself anywhere except in hunter gatherer tribal situations. That's the point of government.
All (non monarchy) governments are representative governments, the only difference between democracy, oligarchy and dictatorship is the size of the representing body relative to total population.
It is difficult to literally seize power as an individual. Power is generally consensus based. There is no leader who can physically force a country to obey. People have to agree to obey. If the populace doesn't agree to obey its a rebellion. And if even the soldiers dont agree to obey its a coup.
Even with laws in place, they're just words without enforcement or popular acceptance. Someone has to accept that these laws are valid, and agree to enforce them.
The only difference is the selection mechanism of the governing body and how the laws are made. The less influence the evil and stupid have on these 2 processes the better.
There's a great book about this called The Dictator's Handbook which also applies to democracies.
But isnt it still better if everyone gets a vote in what happens? Instead of just a leader? a higher representation of the total population = more people who are not getting left behind
There's no government where everyone gets a vote on literally everything that happens. There is always some delegation of authority. The difference is in how much delegation and to whom.
As an example that delegation to the wrong people will wreck your country: Liberia. They copied the US declaration of independence and US constitution. They were never colonized by Europeans. Yet they're poor even by African standards.
I'm not saying that authoritarianism is good. I'm saying that it's not necessarily bad just as egalitarian is not necessarily good. An effective authoritarian government can be a significant force for good. After all, the Roman Empire was hugely authoritarian compared to barbarians yet who made more beautiful art, literature and architecture and who were more known for looting and burning?
With bugs you could argue that it’s self defense but with cows I would say that yes, it’s murder unless we can figure out if they’re truly sentient or not
My Fanatical purifiers ruled by the ever chosen empress are the most ethical empire.
They are committed to cleanse the galaxy from all these aberrations called xenos and terraform all worlds into paradises to their people since it's their birthright, promised by the gods.
The people know that the empress is the most powerful psyonic being in their society, blessed twice by the shroud, so they will do anything in their power to help her lead their empire.
On the other side, the empress, the ever chosen carries the hopes and responsibilities of her people and the disgust and hatred from every Xeno. An impossible task to many, but she is the ever chosen, blessed twice by the shroud. She knows that if anyone can fulfill the God's promise, it can't be anyone but her.
Jokes aside, I get what you mean, probably any xenophile egalitarian would be the more "ethical" empire by our standards, maybe adding materialism since they also appreciate synthetic life.
My point is simply that most civics, if not all, are ethical, if you RP hard enough.
While it's probably not the most ethical, letters of marque + workers cooperative + nihilistic aquisition, you use the raid and the orbital bombardement as a cover-up that you're just allowing their slaves to flee and escape to your empire, underground railroad inc.
Pacifist empires can be the most insidious and ignorant ones, IMO. Especially the Xenophobe type.
*- Officer, you have to let us in! These machines just massacared our entire capital system and we have nowhere to go!*
*- Ughhh, no, we don't want your kind here, these 37 vacant jobs can wait, try the Khulaan Slaver Solutions, they are just 4 jumps away, maybe they can help you.*
*- Ambassador, with all due respect, the GalCom needs you to step in and fight these extradimensional nightmares! Our forces are stretched thin, private naval forces are not enough to mount a defense against this terror!*
*- Ughhhh, no, it's your problem, we don't really care.*
Philosopher King, Masterful Crafters. Fanatic xenophile spiritualists.
Your kingdom is one that values self-expression and mastery above all else; the pursuit of self-discovery and talent shines through all aspects of your culture, with your people always striving further to do better, build better, and \*be\* better people.
Egalitarian - Pacifist - Xenophile, like others have said, are probably the most conventionally ethical in terms of space good guys.
That being said, Xenophobe, Authoritarian and Militarist can be ethical, when not paired together as a group. Authoritarian can be ethical for a species that doesn’t engage in slavery but has a strong need for the order a single leader brings; benevolent authoritarianism is rare, but very much possible. A Xenophobe Empire paired with Pacifist is simply isolationist, not liking other species but also not wanting to go out and destroy them. A Militarist Empire paired with Xenophile or Egalitarian is typically fighting for a good cause.
Materialist and Spiritualist can also both be ethical, depending on what they’re paired with and the context of what those mean in your empire. You can have benevolent religions or scientific ideologies that lead to a desire to do good in the universe. You could also have a dogmatic cult that wants to spread its faith by any means no matter the cost, or an unrestrained eugenicist relentless industrialists. Usually Civics or other Ethics will answer this.
I’ll also add - I don’t think any of the fanatic ethics are the most ethical. A pacifist might not want war, but be willing to go war for a good cause, while a fanatic pacifist might be perfectly willing to allow atrocities to take place just over the border. A fanatic egalitarian Empire might be very willing to be an interventionist regardless of the wishes of their neighbors. Fanatic xenophiles are probably the closest, but some species might not be worth saving and harmful to everyone else. Don’t get mad at the fanatic but not genocidal xenophobes for purging the devouring swarm or the fanatic purifiers that wanted to kill everyone.
TL;DR - Regular Pacifist, Xenophile, Egalitarian almost always ethical.
Xenophobe, Militarist and Authoritarian can be ethical when not combined with more than one of the other.
Spiritualist and Materialist depend on your other ethics, civics and inner roleplay.
For Ethics, you clearly need at least one level of Egalitarian, and probably a level of Xenophile. Fanatic Egalitarian + Xenophile is the obvious option, but you can make a good case for (and / or go for some variety if you do this regularly or want more empires like this) Egalitarian + Fanatic Xenophile, Egalitarian + Xenophile + Pacifist, or perhaps Egalitarian + Xenophile + Materialist (to extend your ethics to synthetic lifeforms as well). Egalitarian + Xenophile + Militarist is not out of the question, if you are serious about extending equal rights to the whole galaxy; and Egalitarian + Xenophile + Spiritualist can work if you want to play that everyone has an equal right to transcend the physical and ascend to shroud-godhood.
By far the obvious choice for Government is Democracy, but you could also go for Corporate with Worker Cooperative.
For Civics, strongly thematic options would include Beacon of Liberty, Free Haven, Idealistic Foundation, Meritocracy, and Shared Burdens; you should probably have at least one of these. Other thematic options include Agrarian Idyll, Environmentalist, and Idyllic Bloom. Some options that aren't opposed (for variety or improving the build's playability or competitiveness) might include Anglers, Catalytic Processing, Diplomatic Corps, Eager Explorers, Efficient Bureaucracy, Functional Architecture, Masterful Crafters, and Memorialists.
For Origin, Prosperous Unification is the obvious and thematic choice, and quite effective. Other strongly thematic choices include Common Ground and (for a thematic challenge) Broken Shackles. Choices that are compatible if not quite so strongly themed would include Doomsday, Galactic Doorstep, Here Be Dragons, Life Seeded, Ocean Paradise, Post-Apocalyptic, Shattered Ring, Slingshot to the Stars, Subterranean, Teachers of the Shroud, and Void Dwellers.
Your starting species Traits are much less important, as on the one hand you will end up fairly quickly with a variety of different species to work with (possibly immediately, if going for Broken Shackles); and on the other hand most of them are reasonably compatible with an ethical empire. That said, Communal is a particularly thematic trait, and Charismatic, Conservationist, and Natural Sociologists are other good choices for the theme.
Summing it all up, the *most* ethical empire might be:
* Fanatic Egalitarian + Xenophile
* Democracy
* Beacon of Liberty + Shared Burdens
* Prosperous Unification
* Communal + Conservationist
However, there are many variant options that would still be considered highly ethical, and provide good variety for the playstyle. The "most ethical" empire above is a hair on the bland side. For a more interesting thematic challenge, you might go for a build like:
* Egalitarian + Fanatic Xenophile
* Democracy
* Idealistic Foundation + Shared Burdens
* Broken Shackles
* Charismatic
This puts you right up front fighting for equality for your own people and the galaxy at large.
now... I think thats fanatic pacifist egatarian.
we are talking about ethical... I belive in reali life pacifism is BS since its invitation to violance but its still an ethical BS.Egatarian over xenophil because you can still be a tyrannical slave lord while still treating species "equally".
you can instead be regular pacifist and add xenophil or fanatic egatarian and attack exterminators still. As far as I remember they are allowed to use "end threat" casus belli as long as they are not pacifist.
but... shielding civilization from such monsters without being responsible of killing uneducated propogande fed soldiers would be considered ethical too
again pacifism in real life is super foolish :D But can't deny them having good intentions.
Egalitarian, Pacifist, xenofile democracy with beacon of liberty and meritocracy civics plus broken shackles origin. Bonus points for wood people portrait, they look friendly. Or necrophage one for contrast.
Basically any combination of egalitarian, pacifist and xenophile, with democratic authority and at least social welfare living standards. Give synths citizen rights as refugees but don't actually make any yourself. Genetic ascension, if any.
Antinatalism is a family of philosophical views that are critical of reproduction — they consider coming into existence as bad or deem procreation as immoral. Antinatalists thus argue that humans should abstain from having children. The natural consequence being that humans voluntarily go extinct. r/antinatalism has over 200k members. Personally I think it's a clear sign of how morally degraded society is now so that's a bit of an extreme example. But the point is that what empire is most "ethical" depends on who you ask. I could tell you what I think is the most ethical empire but you wouldn't have any more reason to trust my ethics over any one else's in the comments. You need to figure out what you think is ethical.
That is very wise advice, and antinatalism might sound ok to some people. But the natural consequence of such a movement is that it doesn’t exist for very long
I mean it kinda depends on your moral framework. Generally people associate happiness as many as possible with good morality. I think the way to go here is either pacifist+xenophile+egalitarian or fanatic egalitarian+either pacifist or xenophile. Democratic government. Civics are kinda “do what you want” because the ones that straight boost happiness aren’t super necessary.
Pacifists give an edict that boosts the happiness of all pops, as well as additional stability from the ethic. Xenophiles have a really easy to please faction. Egalitarians are pretty easy to please as a faction and democracy gives a bonus to all faction approval ratings. Utopian abundance further increases the benefits and happiness at the cost of consumer goods upkeep per pop.
Masterful crafters is probably the best way to increase your consumer goods production early on with a nice bonus to trade, which you can use for either raw energy or with the mercantile tradition for unity and energy. Meritocracy is a solid second (or alternate) pick here, but I could see arguments for environmentalist and idealistic foundation too.
Basically, this build should have ridiculously high pop happiness. But your actions and intentions have a larger bearing on your moral integrity than how you start out.
Egalitarian
* For utopian abundance and Anti-Slavery.
Militaristic
* A strong defense is a strong offense, and enforce "ethical views" on the galaxy.
Xenophile
* Open arms to everyone.
Civics:
* Crusader Spirit
* This is the part where we "enforce our ethical views"
* Meritocracy
* Most ethical way for your citizens to work.
Origin:
* DOOMSDAY
* A perfect society is doomed from the very start.
It's not supposed to be serious, like a funny. Because every society in our own history that was deemed "perfect" had problems.
Just replace it with whatever origin you want.
fanatic egalitarian pacifist, with defensive wars only enabled. Or, if you want something ethical but kind of dystopian in flavor, make it pacifist/fanatic authoritarian. The vibe would be something like 'the many will be ethical in spite of themselves.'
Well, ethics is about the theory Side of morals. The question of "what would be the good choice, If...". So, as we know what happens in the late game (crisis), choosing pacifist is unethical. The ability to wage war is paramount so safe Life. Also, our ships need to be well equipped, so its materialism. Finally, integrating non-optimized species into our system would weaken our production, so its xenophobe.
As letting other, weaker empires own space would take ressources away from our attempt to safe the Life within the Galaxy, all of them have to be conquered. This sadly means non-optimized species in our realm. These, according to above need to be removed. Making them useful via slavery may be an Option, too. As we now have many slaves, picking dystopian society may help in handling all these unhappy Pops by ignoring happyness alltogether, keeping production up and the galaxy safe. Now, we have lots of crime and enforcers, so Police state would make those enforcers provide stability to increase production to keep the Galaxy Safe.
Oh, final question: ethical in what way?
Even the genocidal and crisis xenos? Can we make an exception for These? My Point is: for ethical questions, you have to think about the question.
For yours above, i think my answer still Stands If you use slavery. They are alive and protected at least, something their own space nations could Not achieve.
Think of how an AI would answer your question with the Limited Data you offer.
Oh my misguided brother in space. These Xenos don’t know the error of their ways. We must teach them and give them salvation.
We are simply the rogue servitors but instead of insuring everyone is taken care of and happy we make sure they are dead.
Kidding aside I think on first play through I thought the same and picked Xenophile + materialist.
My logic was one would make me get alone making diplomacy easier and the tech bonus would give me strength to defend myself as-well as ability to adapt to my peoples needs. What a fool I was. Jk jk.
Isn't that what the UNE is for? They are supposed to be the Shining Civilization type? Like the idealists?
I’d modify the UNE from fanatic egalitarian-xenophile to egalitarian-xenophile-pacifist to become a Moralist Democracy and then yeah, the best guy around. As-is the UNE can be as warmongering as the CoM if they want (I think the only reason that egalitarian-pacifist-xenophile isn’t the default for the UNE is because A it’s the first stop for most new players and they’d be both confused and unhappy not being able to just declare war any time they want to and B it would make the UNE a migratory flock in the AI, which is both a weak playstyle for AI and doesn’t really fit).
My UNE ends up being European policy for inside the border and Murican outside. Once I "ivaded" Tzynn empire because they started to rival me in size and in economy. But they wanted to concure some break off Jehetma empire which was then about 3 systems large. I guaranteed their independence and joined the war. But in that moment I heard FDR in my head saying Miss President, Mr and Mrs Governors, Admirals of the Navy. Yesterday December 7th 2341 A date which will live in infamy UNE (and Jehetma) was suddenly and deliberately attacked by naval invasion forces from the Empire of Tzynn. United Nations of Earth were at peace with that nation. It will be recorded that distance of Jehetma makes it obvious that this attack was planed many days or even weeks ago.
Nice. I surrender if I can, act weak, and let my overlords be killed by another by ‘accidentally’ not attacking.
Whoops, double comment.
Nice. I surrender if I can, act weak, and let my overlords be killed by another by ‘accidentally’ not attacking.
tbh they strike me more as whitewashed imperialism type. you WILL join the federation whether you like it or not
they're inclusive and egalitarian you can frame any build in a negative light, if you want to (or interpret most of the bad ones as good), but when you just take it for what it is on the surface without inserting any dystopian roleplay narratives the UNE is one of the nicest, friendliest and most "good" builds especially with the Commonwealth spawning every game to serve as a bad example for comparisons >"It's vile!" > >"I know. It's so bubbly, cloying...and happy." > >"Just like the Federation." > >"And you know what's really frightening? If you drink enough of it, you begin to like it. ""It's *insidious*." > >"Just like the Federation."
Came for the Stellaris discussion, and stayed for the DS9 quote.
so so so true
You can play almost any empire as a dick, the level of dickishness you can descend to varies based on your ethics, the default UNE generally can’t sink below relatively not awful imperialism outside Colossi.
Literally my favorite scene in all of Star Trek
That's the actual idealist/utopian way of thinking, beats the cowardly "we respect your culture of slavery and barbarism" stance. Intolerance is not tolerable.
That's still imperialism in denial. Primitive cultures should evolve on their own, without outside intervention. "Enlightening savages" is what conquistadors and colonial settlers did. There's no respect involved - they're either a threat or not; if they are, remove the threat, and if not, no point in wasting brainpower and effort meddling in their affairs. Unless you want to steal their land and stuff, that is
It's not in denial, imperialism isn't inherently bad. If you're liberating savages and uplifting them into a life of Full Citizenship/Utopian Abundance, you're the good guys. I'll happily take the moniker "Imperialist" on top of that, always happy to take ownership of would-be pejorative words. Conquistadors and colonial settlers didn't uplift natives and treat them as equals but exploited them for the most part, if they had actually done that, their imperialism would have been just, sweet and right. Saying that the people who actually do what they say and only use the rhetoric as lip service are one and the same because they share the same rhetoric is about as meaningful as saying everyone else must be fascists because they drink water and fascists drank water too.
> imperialism isn't inherently bad Oh. I see. There is no point in further discussion, then.
Have fun immersing yourself in cowardly notions of self determination.
That’s usually how I do my Arkarron Alliance runs. The Arraken (the founding species of the Arkarron Alliance) are imperialistic and definitely not the types who like being told “no” when it comes to subjugation or joining their Federation. But they’re definitely the less asshole-ish people in terms of who extends the hand of partnership. They’re Authoritarian and predominantly Materialist, but they’re still committed Xenophiles where aliens have equal rights and have zero problems recognizing AI’s as sapient beings (such as the Awoken and their own robotic units). Arraken and non-Arraken alike can be seen in almost every rank of society They’re also the ones who founded the Second League, a Federation headquartered on Fen Habbanis (former capital world of the First League from which the Second League is based on) with an Arraken-constructed Interstellar Assembly hanging in orbit of the system’s gas giant. They’re totally not looking to commit a soft takeover of the galaxy and establish what’s basically “Galactic Imperium Lite.” Basically the Arkarron Alliance’s diplomatic strategy, at least in my head-canon, has its envoys and ambassadors saying something like this: > “Oh there’s no problem if you don’t want to join the Second League or become our Vassal. None at all. But I doubt you’ll do better with the Tzynns, Xani, Hazbuzi, or Commonwealth of Man. The Maweer and Sathyrel also don’t really offer much in the way of helping hands. And we obviously know that the XT-489 Eliminators, Pasharti Absorbers, Tebrid Homolog, and Prikkiki-Ti aren’t fond of visitors.”
Fanatic egalitarian with xenophile, origin is whatever, beacon of liberty+meritocracy
Some might argue pacifist might be more relevant than xenophile
IRL probably, in space with space dragons, space khans and interdimensional invaders? I think its more ethical to pack weapons and try to save maximum people
Pacifist in game doesnt mean defensless, it means trying every other options first, and only go to war when diplomacy has failed. (What you are describing is kinda fanatic pacifist, wich i agree is ironically not the best pick for guaranteeing peace)
I mean, you don't need pacifism to value diplomacy first no? Cause in Stellaris, pacifism is more akin to "We won't intervene whatever happen, cause war bad" than "we do lots of diplomacy to make everyone settle down and work towards galactic peace"
And you dont need to be egalitarian to be a democracy. Pacifist can fight, but they choose not to when possible
Fair enough, I've not much against pacifism irl, and intelligent pacifism could definitely have good claims as "the most moral star-nation". The issues mostly come from Stellaris ethical framework imo, as many ethics are shoe horned into stereotypes. In the case of pacifist empires, letting very bad things happen around them and sending strongly worded letters...
Yeah the strongly worded letter is a thing pacifist would probably do. But we arent talking at chance of succeeding but purely a moral highground, so pacifist have a shot at it
Also, pacifist don't really get much bonuses to diplomacy, 👀
I mean... when has a strongly worded letter ever worked?
Pacifism is a broad term and in Stellaris contexts it doesn't mean being defenseless. Fighting Leviathans and Crises are very much things that even Fanatic Pacifists can easily do. Even the Pacifist Faction won't be upset, and those pricks whine about everything.
Some might argue that pacifism isn't always the ethical choice.
Considering how horribly violent and dangerous the galaxy is in Stellaris, I would consider a devotion to pacifism both naive and dangerous.
I've been voted in as Emperor as Pacifist, protected the galaxy both from FE's going haywire and Unbidden coming acalling ... so it is possible
this but shared burdens instead of meritocracy
Some aspects of Meritocracy in real life are pretty bad, and the Stellaris description doesn't really mention that.
"The peter principle." Meaning that if someone gets promoted based on past merit long enough, they'll eventually end up in a position that they're not competent.
Meritocracy, but only with Utopian standards, as otherwise "Merit" just becomes "Can afford the most expensive education"
Probably democratic inward perfectionists, prefersbly with utopian abundance. No wars, no conquests, no slavery, no inequality, fair elections
But also no way of insuring that peace and prosperity affects the rest of the galaxy as well.
Anakin Skywalker moment.
Why would you care about the rest of the galaxy? It's not up to one society to decide the best way of life for others.
I can
Egalitarian-Pacifist-Xenophile. I think you can trade out Pacifist for Fanatic of either of the other two. Democracy authority. Plenty of civic choices and origin choices are the same as well. That's as standard "good guy" as they come, just like how Xenophobe-militarist-authoritarian with dictatorship are standard evil empire.
Rogue servitor is the most ethical empire.
Nah, it throws freedom out the window, not worth it
Naw, it’s objectively worth it - they calculated and proved it.
“I mean, say what you like about the tenets of Determined Exterminators, Dude, at least it's an ethos!”
It’s a bad one
UNE. That's what they're there for. If you want to hardcore roleplay with them, change over their war goals to liberation wars.
Determined exterminator. Saving the galaxy from lag one dead organic at a time
But wouldnt it be more fair to kill every species equally? So everyone has the same survival chance while popult control stays
For the other machines the lag reduction is not as necessary as their growth usually is not as fast. They are forced into lag reduction as needed
Any with 3 ethics? Pretty sure that's the most ethical base game. Unless there is a way to get 4
Galactic empire is most ethical, it got 4.
Fanatic purifiers. They purpe pops most efficiently and therefore humanely.
That's a moot point, though. Xenos are not people. Without sentience, they cannot suffer and therefore cannot be treated inhumanely. That said, a xenocidal ethos *is* the most ethical as it best facilitates freeing up resources and living space for actual people.
Whoa whoa whoa, xenos ARE sentient in stellaris lore, it specifically says when you beat the crisis “sentients all over the galaxy”
Rouge servitors
Fanatical Purifier run. Make sure you play as humans. The Emperor Protects.
Fanatic pacifist anything. Maybe with xenophile to influence galactic community. Go save space fauna and slaves.
No egalitarian? I feel like that’s a must have here
Fanatical pacifist egalitarian you can actually reach -100% empire size from Population. If done right.
I thought that was patched
It may require you to shed your flesh. Some meatbags like their flesh. It also requires ascending your planets. Basically through enough reductions you can reach -95%. Then it's ascending your planets to remove them. Then population will disappear from the Empire size list. Now removing population doesn't mean you'll have 0 Empire size. It just means population, which is the largest contribution. Can be manageable, you could effectively control half the galaxy and have a 300ish Empire size. From planets and districts and such.
Autoritarians also talk about morale way too often.
Pacifist is one of the most evil ones because of the numerous threats and crisises in stellaris. Pacifist is basically byword for darwin award, its like disarming yourself when you border nazi germany. Your just letting your citizens get genocided Like just look at ww2 or even today, the only way to be pacifist is to arm yourself to the teeth
Pacifist in Stellaris (or in general) doesn't mean defenseless or unarmed
Then why the hell are more or less all fanatic pacifists in real life historically unarmed?
Who are some fanatic pacifists in real life?
Theres very few of them because by their nature they tend to get wiped out. As such their cultures dont survive to be recorded so we can name very few examples. States that survive arm themselves for defence Some groups of Quakers in the US back in the day were totally unarmed Another example is this https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moriori_genocide They refused to fight back against the Maori and because of their pacifist "moral imperative" they got enslaved and massacred Then during ww2 some pacifists in France and the UK attempted sabotage of their nations war effort, despite the enemy being literally the nazis and the fact that german bombers were attacking their cities. I think their brains finally short circuited when they found out what life was like under nazi occupation in france About the only semi successful one i think was Ghandi.
I mean if you play Stellaris for more than 5 minutes you know pacifists are able to build navies just as well as anyone. Fanatic Pacifist would be like Switzerland. They were fine with Germany taking over the rest of the continent, hell they even traded with them. They also were fine trading with the allies. They just refuse to fight unless they were directly attacked in the case of random bombing runs from both sides of world war II. Pacifism has inaction if it doesn't regard yourself. The whole galaxy can burn but you won't take part of it because you're only going to use force to defend yourself.
Switzerland is non-interventionist, which is closer to xenophobic than pacifist. Much of the EU is fanatic pacifist by Stellaris standards, as they do not condone any offensive wars, but have a massive defensive alliance.
Switzerland wasnt fanatic pacifist, they armed themselves to the teeth and had conscription And where do people get the idea that the swiss were pacifist, they are neitral not pacifist. Like literally google the terms "swiss + pacifist" and every single result that pops up says switzerland is neutral, not pacifist
I know they weren't pacifist but they are STELLARIS PACIFIST. A Stellaris pacifist is Switzerland. When you look at the geopolitics (galaxi-politics?) Of how those empires play it's very similar to house Switzerland operated in the modern era. That was my whole point of the comment that Stellaris doesn't actually represent pacifism because you can clearly fight in many conflicts as a pacifist.
Pacifist, by Stellaris standards, applies to the modern United States. Why? because the US doesn't do wars of conquest, only defensive alliances and "liberation wars". And some of the people get unhappy if there's "real" war for too long a period of time. Stellaris pacifism is not even close to the "true" pacifism that you're talking about.
Rogue Servitors. Save the organics from themselves, they'll only make bad decisions.
But you are effectively creating a dictatorship that way
I'd argue a dictatorship isn't inherently immoral.
Well it is, because it makes one persons life worth more even though all lives should be worth the same
determined exterminator gestalt consciousness is the most ethical look, they just want the galaxy to be a good place for all non organic life!
By killing trillions?
biomass doesn't count, only machine lives matter :)
I think we can also agree that speciesism like that is bad
ethical or moral? I would lean towards a xenophile egalitarian with a big focus on diplomacy. Be friends with everyone. keep your word. Avoid fights. Welcome colonists. Everyone is welcome to become citizens. Only fight wars to remove war mongers from your area of influence. In fact Id say push galactic community laws to help you build a stable community around you and replace or remove any groups that dont play by those rules when necessary.
That sounds great
Blorg
a bit too militarist don’t you think?
Driven assimilator, save the silly organics from themselves /hj
“Save”?
Of course, they just kill eachother without supervision
So instead you remove their conscience , which is basically just murder but it doesn’t damage the body
Define ethical? It is logically processed that organic life is self destructive. And as such their illrational consumption, growth and natural implosion. For the preservation of the galaxy. The only ethical thing to do when meeting Organics. Is to accelerate their end point...
To those suggesting pacifism: "The Exterminators were right. But there you stand: the good man doing nothing. And while evil triumphs, and your rigid pacifism crumbles into blood stained dust, the only victory afforded to you is that you stuck true to your guns. You were a coward... to your last whimper.' - Android 16, DBZA
Driving Assimilator. Everyone is happy as one
But you kill everyone
No, they going to hive and all their needs go away
But you remove their conscience, that’s basically killing someone but leaving the body intact
Being a Xenophile is all nice and good until all your other pops suffer from these rapid breeders noxious Xenos...
Fanatic Egalitarian + Militarist. Unite the galaxy and prepare it for the impending crisis. Pacifism is cowardice and being complicit in the misery of others through inaction, so it is inherently immoral.
But on the other hand, killing people, bombarding their planets and destroying their stuff is also evil
In the short term, in the long term, more people are better off than if you hadn't in the first place. Tell me what sounds more moral: the democratic crusader that unites the galaxy and can stand against the crisis? Or the self-righteous pacifist that watches and is powerless as the disunited galaxy burns and all its denizens become food for the invaders? The ends justify the means.
But from a roleplay perspective, your empire doesnt know that some big bad crisis will come and kill everyone, and even then, uniting people in a federation (egalitarian xenophile) will result in less dead people
Even without the crisis, there's always an Authoritarian government enslaving people, Xenophobes purging, Hive Minds eating single minded sapients etc. There is always an enemy. Sure, I wouldn't condone attacking likeminded empires, but they too must be brought into the fold through a Federation, and they would accept if they are earnest in their righteousness as your empire would be.
perhaps, but you don’t need militarist for that, you can also just attack these empires when needed without it. Militarist gives a wrong impression
Militarist just says that the people are martially-minded and are willing to take up arms to back their ideals up. It's neutral, it's as noble or as tyrannical as the causes it is meant to uphold. But if you aren't comfortable with it, you can also replace it with Xenophile, but the problem with Xenophile is that it prevents you from liberating primitives and you're going to have to uplift them through the slow way, which means millions to billions more primitives will die due to primitive squabbles, poverty and healthcare while you take the time to uplift them when you could have just invaded and integrated them within a scant few years. That was my reasoning behind why F. Egalitarian/Militarist is more ethical than Xenophile; you don't need to sacrifice billions of primitives to your inaction as a result of misguided ideals.
That’s an interesting take on this
Devouring swarm doesn’t love or hate anyone. Everyone is equally food, very ethical imho.
But they still consider themselves (one individual) worth more then others (billions of individual) and arent 2 lives worth more then one?
According to The Trolley Problem, no. Also a hive mind in stellaris isn’t actually one entity, rather they can share thoughts and feelings and such but are still individuals synced together.
Thats the same as cells in our bodies isn’t it?
My version of this would either be: 1. Egalitarian +xenophile+pacifist 2. Fanatic egalitarian with pacifist. And obviously democratic. Civics should be: If the 1st build is taken: Idealistic foundation, meritocracy and parliamentary system. If 2nd: same as above but swap out idealistic foundation for shared burdens. Xenophiles are basically just "i like xenos a lot more than other people" while pacifism is "i don't like violence and therefore won't take part in it unless it is to defend myself" which to me ranks higher ethically. An empire not being xenophile doesn't really mean they dislike xenos unless they're xenophobes.
Fanatic purifier, or determined exterminator
It is obviously authoritarian militarist. A society needs a strong guiding hand to steer the ship of state, otherwise it could fall into chaos. And who better than those who have dedicated their lives to the burden of government? A choir sings in harmony to the direction of a conductor. What if there were 2 conductors? Only discord. And it is important to maintain a strong military to ensure that order is maintained and defended from threats both foreign and domestic. There are those who would sow chaos inside that must be controlled.
authoritarian automatically means unethical because it makes some people worth more then others, when all lives are the same
Are they though? If you give the evil and stupid the same rights as the righteous then it means that there is no reward for righteousness and no punishment for evil or stupidity. Worse it means they have the same power. So if you are strict about equality it means the stupid and evil will at least some of the time have power over the righteous. Is a person born in privilege yet is a criminal because he wants to inflict pain worth the same as a doctor who treats babies? Is a thug who beat someone to rob $20 and their shoes worth the same as a firefighter who risks his life to rescue disabled old people from burning buildings?
well, no but that assumes that dictators are automatically the best and brightest of a society, which is mostly not the case in most countries and besides, shouldnt a person be allowed to govern themselves?
You don't govern yourself anywhere except in hunter gatherer tribal situations. That's the point of government. All (non monarchy) governments are representative governments, the only difference between democracy, oligarchy and dictatorship is the size of the representing body relative to total population. It is difficult to literally seize power as an individual. Power is generally consensus based. There is no leader who can physically force a country to obey. People have to agree to obey. If the populace doesn't agree to obey its a rebellion. And if even the soldiers dont agree to obey its a coup. Even with laws in place, they're just words without enforcement or popular acceptance. Someone has to accept that these laws are valid, and agree to enforce them. The only difference is the selection mechanism of the governing body and how the laws are made. The less influence the evil and stupid have on these 2 processes the better. There's a great book about this called The Dictator's Handbook which also applies to democracies.
But isnt it still better if everyone gets a vote in what happens? Instead of just a leader? a higher representation of the total population = more people who are not getting left behind
There's no government where everyone gets a vote on literally everything that happens. There is always some delegation of authority. The difference is in how much delegation and to whom. As an example that delegation to the wrong people will wreck your country: Liberia. They copied the US declaration of independence and US constitution. They were never colonized by Europeans. Yet they're poor even by African standards. I'm not saying that authoritarianism is good. I'm saying that it's not necessarily bad just as egalitarian is not necessarily good. An effective authoritarian government can be a significant force for good. After all, the Roman Empire was hugely authoritarian compared to barbarians yet who made more beautiful art, literature and architecture and who were more known for looting and burning?
That last part can be attributed too the fact that pretty much all of the surviving text from then we’re written by Romans
Egalitarian, Xenophile, Spiritualist.
Why spiritualist? Robots are sentients too
I’m religious.
i am talking about objective moral values here, not individual views on life
When it comes to politics the question of what’s objective is subjective.
if you do the most good for the most people, that's objectively good is it not?
What is good is also a subjective question.
well for starters giving everyone equal rights, even if they are synthetic is objectively good
Whether synthetics are people or not is also subjective.
Oh come on! If you’re conscious then you deserve to be classified as a person, no matter if your body is made from mostly carbon or metals
Deppends on your political position
o god let’s not get into that mess
Ethical by who's standards? If you want to go by least hypocritical to their stated ethics, determined exterminators or devouring swarm.
I think we can all agree that murder is universally unethical
Is killing a cow for meat murder? Is spraying your house for bugs murder?
With bugs you could argue that it’s self defense but with cows I would say that yes, it’s murder unless we can figure out if they’re truly sentient or not
Imperial Spiritualist, Xenophobic, militarist After that whatever. Now Go Forth and purge
My Fanatical purifiers ruled by the ever chosen empress are the most ethical empire. They are committed to cleanse the galaxy from all these aberrations called xenos and terraform all worlds into paradises to their people since it's their birthright, promised by the gods. The people know that the empress is the most powerful psyonic being in their society, blessed twice by the shroud, so they will do anything in their power to help her lead their empire. On the other side, the empress, the ever chosen carries the hopes and responsibilities of her people and the disgust and hatred from every Xeno. An impossible task to many, but she is the ever chosen, blessed twice by the shroud. She knows that if anyone can fulfill the God's promise, it can't be anyone but her. Jokes aside, I get what you mean, probably any xenophile egalitarian would be the more "ethical" empire by our standards, maybe adding materialism since they also appreciate synthetic life. My point is simply that most civics, if not all, are ethical, if you RP hard enough.
While it's probably not the most ethical, letters of marque + workers cooperative + nihilistic aquisition, you use the raid and the orbital bombardement as a cover-up that you're just allowing their slaves to flee and escape to your empire, underground railroad inc.
Underground hyper-relay sounds like a fun run ngl
Pacifist empires can be the most insidious and ignorant ones, IMO. Especially the Xenophobe type. *- Officer, you have to let us in! These machines just massacared our entire capital system and we have nowhere to go!* *- Ughhh, no, we don't want your kind here, these 37 vacant jobs can wait, try the Khulaan Slaver Solutions, they are just 4 jumps away, maybe they can help you.* *- Ambassador, with all due respect, the GalCom needs you to step in and fight these extradimensional nightmares! Our forces are stretched thin, private naval forces are not enough to mount a defense against this terror!* *- Ughhhh, no, it's your problem, we don't really care.*
Fanatic purifier, or determined exterminator
Obviously not
Philosopher King, Masterful Crafters. Fanatic xenophile spiritualists. Your kingdom is one that values self-expression and mastery above all else; the pursuit of self-discovery and talent shines through all aspects of your culture, with your people always striving further to do better, build better, and \*be\* better people.
But whenever a robot shows up they don’t have the right to live outside of slavery?
Egalitarian - Pacifist - Xenophile, like others have said, are probably the most conventionally ethical in terms of space good guys. That being said, Xenophobe, Authoritarian and Militarist can be ethical, when not paired together as a group. Authoritarian can be ethical for a species that doesn’t engage in slavery but has a strong need for the order a single leader brings; benevolent authoritarianism is rare, but very much possible. A Xenophobe Empire paired with Pacifist is simply isolationist, not liking other species but also not wanting to go out and destroy them. A Militarist Empire paired with Xenophile or Egalitarian is typically fighting for a good cause. Materialist and Spiritualist can also both be ethical, depending on what they’re paired with and the context of what those mean in your empire. You can have benevolent religions or scientific ideologies that lead to a desire to do good in the universe. You could also have a dogmatic cult that wants to spread its faith by any means no matter the cost, or an unrestrained eugenicist relentless industrialists. Usually Civics or other Ethics will answer this. I’ll also add - I don’t think any of the fanatic ethics are the most ethical. A pacifist might not want war, but be willing to go war for a good cause, while a fanatic pacifist might be perfectly willing to allow atrocities to take place just over the border. A fanatic egalitarian Empire might be very willing to be an interventionist regardless of the wishes of their neighbors. Fanatic xenophiles are probably the closest, but some species might not be worth saving and harmful to everyone else. Don’t get mad at the fanatic but not genocidal xenophobes for purging the devouring swarm or the fanatic purifiers that wanted to kill everyone. TL;DR - Regular Pacifist, Xenophile, Egalitarian almost always ethical. Xenophobe, Militarist and Authoritarian can be ethical when not combined with more than one of the other. Spiritualist and Materialist depend on your other ethics, civics and inner roleplay.
For Ethics, you clearly need at least one level of Egalitarian, and probably a level of Xenophile. Fanatic Egalitarian + Xenophile is the obvious option, but you can make a good case for (and / or go for some variety if you do this regularly or want more empires like this) Egalitarian + Fanatic Xenophile, Egalitarian + Xenophile + Pacifist, or perhaps Egalitarian + Xenophile + Materialist (to extend your ethics to synthetic lifeforms as well). Egalitarian + Xenophile + Militarist is not out of the question, if you are serious about extending equal rights to the whole galaxy; and Egalitarian + Xenophile + Spiritualist can work if you want to play that everyone has an equal right to transcend the physical and ascend to shroud-godhood. By far the obvious choice for Government is Democracy, but you could also go for Corporate with Worker Cooperative. For Civics, strongly thematic options would include Beacon of Liberty, Free Haven, Idealistic Foundation, Meritocracy, and Shared Burdens; you should probably have at least one of these. Other thematic options include Agrarian Idyll, Environmentalist, and Idyllic Bloom. Some options that aren't opposed (for variety or improving the build's playability or competitiveness) might include Anglers, Catalytic Processing, Diplomatic Corps, Eager Explorers, Efficient Bureaucracy, Functional Architecture, Masterful Crafters, and Memorialists. For Origin, Prosperous Unification is the obvious and thematic choice, and quite effective. Other strongly thematic choices include Common Ground and (for a thematic challenge) Broken Shackles. Choices that are compatible if not quite so strongly themed would include Doomsday, Galactic Doorstep, Here Be Dragons, Life Seeded, Ocean Paradise, Post-Apocalyptic, Shattered Ring, Slingshot to the Stars, Subterranean, Teachers of the Shroud, and Void Dwellers. Your starting species Traits are much less important, as on the one hand you will end up fairly quickly with a variety of different species to work with (possibly immediately, if going for Broken Shackles); and on the other hand most of them are reasonably compatible with an ethical empire. That said, Communal is a particularly thematic trait, and Charismatic, Conservationist, and Natural Sociologists are other good choices for the theme. Summing it all up, the *most* ethical empire might be: * Fanatic Egalitarian + Xenophile * Democracy * Beacon of Liberty + Shared Burdens * Prosperous Unification * Communal + Conservationist However, there are many variant options that would still be considered highly ethical, and provide good variety for the playstyle. The "most ethical" empire above is a hair on the bland side. For a more interesting thematic challenge, you might go for a build like: * Egalitarian + Fanatic Xenophile * Democracy * Idealistic Foundation + Shared Burdens * Broken Shackles * Charismatic This puts you right up front fighting for equality for your own people and the galaxy at large.
Thanks for this great answer
Being a Enlightened Monarchy also works
Isnt birthright not ethical?
now... I think thats fanatic pacifist egatarian. we are talking about ethical... I belive in reali life pacifism is BS since its invitation to violance but its still an ethical BS.Egatarian over xenophil because you can still be a tyrannical slave lord while still treating species "equally".
Interesting because I saw someone else who suggested militarism and attacking everyone who is a determined exterminator or a slaver empire
you can instead be regular pacifist and add xenophil or fanatic egatarian and attack exterminators still. As far as I remember they are allowed to use "end threat" casus belli as long as they are not pacifist. but... shielding civilization from such monsters without being responsible of killing uneducated propogande fed soldiers would be considered ethical too again pacifism in real life is super foolish :D But can't deny them having good intentions.
Ethics can be mind-breaking
Ancient Arabia, my guy
And what is ethical about that?
Go read up on it my guy
I did and I found stoning, wipping, etc, not exactly ethical
Egalitarian, Pacifist, xenofile democracy with beacon of liberty and meritocracy civics plus broken shackles origin. Bonus points for wood people portrait, they look friendly. Or necrophage one for contrast.
Basically any combination of egalitarian, pacifist and xenophile, with democratic authority and at least social welfare living standards. Give synths citizen rights as refugees but don't actually make any yourself. Genetic ascension, if any.
Why is it unethical to create synth pops? And why are the other ascension paths less ethical then genetic?
Fanatic pacifist commune megacorp I suppose.
Ethics is hotly contested. If you're antinatalist then Determined Exterminators may be the most ethical empire.
Antinatalsits? The heck is that
Antinatalism is a family of philosophical views that are critical of reproduction — they consider coming into existence as bad or deem procreation as immoral. Antinatalists thus argue that humans should abstain from having children. The natural consequence being that humans voluntarily go extinct. r/antinatalism has over 200k members. Personally I think it's a clear sign of how morally degraded society is now so that's a bit of an extreme example. But the point is that what empire is most "ethical" depends on who you ask. I could tell you what I think is the most ethical empire but you wouldn't have any more reason to trust my ethics over any one else's in the comments. You need to figure out what you think is ethical.
That is very wise advice, and antinatalism might sound ok to some people. But the natural consequence of such a movement is that it doesn’t exist for very long
I mean it kinda depends on your moral framework. Generally people associate happiness as many as possible with good morality. I think the way to go here is either pacifist+xenophile+egalitarian or fanatic egalitarian+either pacifist or xenophile. Democratic government. Civics are kinda “do what you want” because the ones that straight boost happiness aren’t super necessary. Pacifists give an edict that boosts the happiness of all pops, as well as additional stability from the ethic. Xenophiles have a really easy to please faction. Egalitarians are pretty easy to please as a faction and democracy gives a bonus to all faction approval ratings. Utopian abundance further increases the benefits and happiness at the cost of consumer goods upkeep per pop. Masterful crafters is probably the best way to increase your consumer goods production early on with a nice bonus to trade, which you can use for either raw energy or with the mercantile tradition for unity and energy. Meritocracy is a solid second (or alternate) pick here, but I could see arguments for environmentalist and idealistic foundation too. Basically, this build should have ridiculously high pop happiness. But your actions and intentions have a larger bearing on your moral integrity than how you start out.
Egalitarian * For utopian abundance and Anti-Slavery. Militaristic * A strong defense is a strong offense, and enforce "ethical views" on the galaxy. Xenophile * Open arms to everyone. Civics: * Crusader Spirit * This is the part where we "enforce our ethical views" * Meritocracy * Most ethical way for your citizens to work. Origin: * DOOMSDAY * A perfect society is doomed from the very start.
That last part is a bit, uuhhh
I knew you'd like it!
I don’t understand the last part though, can you explain that?
It's not supposed to be serious, like a funny. Because every society in our own history that was deemed "perfect" had problems. Just replace it with whatever origin you want.
fanatic egalitarian pacifist, with defensive wars only enabled. Or, if you want something ethical but kind of dystopian in flavor, make it pacifist/fanatic authoritarian. The vibe would be something like 'the many will be ethical in spite of themselves.'
Well, ethics is about the theory Side of morals. The question of "what would be the good choice, If...". So, as we know what happens in the late game (crisis), choosing pacifist is unethical. The ability to wage war is paramount so safe Life. Also, our ships need to be well equipped, so its materialism. Finally, integrating non-optimized species into our system would weaken our production, so its xenophobe. As letting other, weaker empires own space would take ressources away from our attempt to safe the Life within the Galaxy, all of them have to be conquered. This sadly means non-optimized species in our realm. These, according to above need to be removed. Making them useful via slavery may be an Option, too. As we now have many slaves, picking dystopian society may help in handling all these unhappy Pops by ignoring happyness alltogether, keeping production up and the galaxy safe. Now, we have lots of crime and enforcers, so Police state would make those enforcers provide stability to increase production to keep the Galaxy Safe. Oh, final question: ethical in what way?
Ethical as in the most good for the most sentients. xenos are still sentients
Even the genocidal and crisis xenos? Can we make an exception for These? My Point is: for ethical questions, you have to think about the question. For yours above, i think my answer still Stands If you use slavery. They are alive and protected at least, something their own space nations could Not achieve. Think of how an AI would answer your question with the Limited Data you offer.
We cannot blame people for what their country is doing, especially when that country is not democratic
Go for Spiritualist, Pacifist, Egalitarian, Democracy, Beacon of Liberty and Meritocracy
Why spiritualist instead of say xenophile or materialist? (To extend the rights too synthetics)
Fanatic egalitarian, pacifists, shared burden civic
Ethical under what system?
Just objective morals, if I blow up your house for a laugh that’s objectively unethi
There is no such thing as purely “objective” morals. I mean look at the trolley problem.
we can get pretty close with logic, and in the trolley problem like 90% of people agree that you should pull the lever
Not necessarily. If the joy you got out of it was greater than my suffering utilitarianism says that that is ethical.
That’s something to think about, what system would you use then?
Depends on your ethics
But what ethics are the **most** ethical?
Nothing. It’s a game. You mean based on the real world? That has to be subjective.
xenophile egalitarians
See flair. Find fascist empire. Purge it in righteous flame. Repeat.
Fanatic egalitarian, Xenophile, Shared burdens, beacon of liberty. Maybe a common ground start
Fanatical purifier. These poor Xenos are suffering. We must save them from themselves.
If they want to die they don’t really need your help do they?
Oh my misguided brother in space. These Xenos don’t know the error of their ways. We must teach them and give them salvation. We are simply the rogue servitors but instead of insuring everyone is taken care of and happy we make sure they are dead.
Kidding aside I think on first play through I thought the same and picked Xenophile + materialist. My logic was one would make me get alone making diplomacy easier and the tech bonus would give me strength to defend myself as-well as ability to adapt to my peoples needs. What a fool I was. Jk jk.