I dont like the pacifist faction

[cooltv27]

they are honestly more of a capitalist faction. with most of their ideas beign about having large amounts of energy, strategic resources, the prosperity tree, and the only remotely pacifist thing they have is to not be at war (which is a pathetic 2%)
the isolationist faction is much more of a pacifist, with big bonuses for not being at war, having non-agressions pacts

right now its possible to satisfy both the militarist and pacifist faction at the same time, which makes no sense.
for no other pair of opposing factions is it possible to really satisfy them both


I also dont like how the isolation faction is the ONLY faction based around 2 ethics, but I think thats a much smaller issue

[Apeironic_Entelechy]

It doesn't really bother me, pacificism is based on the idea that war is immoral and wasteful so logically a pacifist faction would be focused on directing resources towards general prosperity instead of military action.

I don't really see why they couldn't both be satisifed, they have different issues and agendas so it makes sense to me that they aren't mutually exclusive.

[cooltv27]

its actually easier to accomplish the "pacifist" goals through war, which I think is a problem.
militarists should be about using your military might to conquer other empires (which they generally are)
pacifist should be about the end of warfare in general (which they really arnt)

these 2 are the only ones where you can satisfy both, I think its unusual because these are almost the most opposed of the group

[::Maethendias::]

on a sidenote, how long does the nonviolence malus stay?

[deciBelle]

I'd also like to know how long the nonviolence penalty stays. I was recently pulled into an offensive war in a federation and I'm now looking at a majority of my population hating my rule!

[galadon3]

Yepp pretty much agree with the fact that they are more like the money-class then pacifists, especially with their control of 3/5/10 strategic ressources issue, wich isnt even a "have them" (like through trade with other empires/enclaves) but a "control them" as in have them in your territory. Wich is pretty hard to achieve without outright conquering them.
Actually I think a lot of the faction-systems still needs polishing. For example really dislike it that its pretty hard to satisfy the spiritualists without going psionic ascendandy and the weird prereq for their existance of having found a tomb world or a gaia world.

Originally posted by cooltv27:

I also dont like how the isolation faction is the ONLY faction based around 2 ethics, but I think thats a much smaller issue

Actually the Isolationists are only based on the Xenophobe ethic, the point is that as long as the empire doesnt have pacifist as a state-ethic only non-main-species POPs can join them. In a non-pacifist-empire main-species POPs that are xenophobe actually go into the supremacists (aka Space-Nazis).
Wich actually makes the Xenophobe-Ethic the only Ethic that gets divided into two factions (another point where the Ethic-Faction System is kinda scewed).

[Exarch_Alpha]

I think the bloody malus stays for a decade. It´s very annoying, but you can supress the faction so it doesn´t grows more.

[::Maethendias::]

^ it stays for about 5-10 years

[Arcos]

The rpoblem with pacifists is the bonuses and downsides they get. Not be able to vasalize people and then integrate them into their socity seems dum. would amke more sence to not be able to declear wars if the enemy isn't purging makes not much sence, also a tech to majorly buff defensstations or a bonus would make sence, since i asume even fanatic pacifists wouldn't want to be eaten or killed and if looking strong keeps them away from war what's the problem.