Xenophobes and Militarists v. diplomacy handled wrongly

[Ava Sans Frontières]

Stellaris, as good as it is, needs some ration and logic rework

"Oh, so you're a xenophobe? You ♥♥♥♥ing bigot. We don't want anything to do with you"
"Oh, so you're a xenophobe? Let me declare a war upon you"
- Ever xenophile empire ever

Apparently, being a xenophobe in Stellaris means everyone >else< treats you like ♥♥♥♥.
They literally get a hit to diplomatic relations because I'm playing a Fanatic Xenophobe.
I mean they get the hit to relations, for me being not-so-keen on strangers. Isn't it supposed to be the other way around?

And even though I'm a Fanatic Xenophobe + Militarist, doesn't mean I'm an outwards aggressor. Quite to the contrary, I'm isolationist, whose society happens to evolve around the military. (As a matter of fact, my current playthrough is with a certain empire named Romulan Star Empire, but I'm even more isolationist/open than those - that is, if treaties ensure my state is left alone, I'm willing to do diplomacy).

But the game treats me like I'm a genocidal rampant, just for being xenophobe.
Xenophobia = the fear of aliens, strangers - outwards weariness.
Xenophobia =/= an inherent desire to purge all life.
Militarist = A society who believes in a rigid militaristic structure and hierarchy, where the military is intertwined with civil service.
Militarist =/= An eternal aggressor who necessarily thinks war makes right, and diplomacy is futile.

I might be militarist, I might be xenophobe. But I'm not expansionist.

Even the greatest of them all, Carl von Clausewitz, was a keen lover of peace and diplomacy. As he put it, war is an extension of diplomacy - it is not necessarily something to stride for.

So how should this be handled?
Of course, I'm not saying that xenophobes should be inherently better at diplomacy than xenophiles. I'm saying it should be a possibility. As it stands, it's not.
Xenophiles should try to open you up, warm you up, not declare you enemy of the galaxy simply for being different. Thought xenophilia was all about embracing others.
How states look at you, should probably overall be judged more on past actions, than ethics.
This would make the game more natural, and also mean diplomacy is more viable. And as an added bonus, it means players will be part of shaping the status of power and diplomacy in the galaxy.
Overall, it shouldn't be more difficult to make diplomacy >because you're< militarist or xenophobe. It should be more difficult to make diplomacy with >other< xenophobes. And militarism shouldn't be a hindrance on diplomacy at all (except if we're talking with a state that believes in total disarmament - but again, are they willing to accept others' differing infrastructures or not, simply because they themselves pacifist?).

Diplomacy in Stellaris is really bare. That's a fact. But the problem is, how others view of you, is mainly passive factors and your inwards policies. And often, it's not even elaborated upon exactly why someone disagrees with you. ("Differing war policy - but we're both militarist? What?")
Removing embassies kind of limited it even moreso. Trust is a nice idea. IF we had actually had active diplomatic capability.

BUT - two xenophobic empires shouldn't have an easier time with diplomacy because they're "alike". That's how it is in game. That makes no sense whatsoever. Again, outwards trust should be based alone one whether or not you're xenophobe, not what others think.

Anyway, that's my thoughts.

[HugsAndSnuggles]

http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=823421529
...you were saying?

[Ava Sans Frontières]

Escrito originalmente por HugsAndSnuggles:

http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=823421529
...you were saying?

Interesting. I can't remember getting the xenophilia one for xenophobes. But you still have the ridiculous negative. The fact they want a NA Pact is surprising to me.
Still, my points about diplomacy and who gets the modifers still stand.

[Artanis]

You got owned!

[Ava Sans Frontières]

Escrito originalmente por Birdy:

You got owned!

Grace really isn't your strong suit, is it?

[Artanis]

Escrito originalmente por avanguardiaHusaria:

Escrito originalmente por Birdy:

You got owned!

Grace really isn't your strong suit, is it?

Suits aren't made to be strong.

[NixBoxDone]

Unless they're suits of armor - For honour, glory and Reinhardt!

[LAG]

Escrito originalmente por Birdy:

You got owned!

what does this even mean

[Shin]

To me it makes sense. If you're a Xenophobe, then you will likely not get along with anyone and that's demonstrated in a variety of ways. It's simply not just a case of being genocidal but it's rooted in a distrust of those who are different.

So, even a "cordial" exchange could be very different depending on the participants and that's what I think the modifier represents. It represents the inability of that civilization to properly understand diplomacy because their ethics inform undiplomatic behaviour.

So, for example, if I'm a xenophobic society.. and I'm working on an alliance... or peace treaty... I might characterize it this way "We're allying ourselves with inferior peoples because we need security." That's how the xenophobe would define that relationship. Sure, there's sort of "peaceful" vibe to it, but on the other side of that negotiation there are peoples who don't understand that mindset and might be worried about it.

As opposed to to a xenophile... Who would, in the same situation, characterize their treaty in this way "Different people coming together to achieve great things! We embrace our differences!"

It's much easier to negotiate with peoples whose fundamental values embrace the differences in people rather than distance themselves because of differences.

A VERY simplistic example on a small scale is that it's easier to get along with an extrovert rather than an introvert. Introvert's aren't evil... but their social "default" could make connecting with other people difficult. Same idea. The xenophobe's default position is inward facing, therefore they lack the skills to relate and empathize and negotiate with either neutral or outward facing civilizations.

[Prydzen ᛋᛟ]

Escrito originalmente por Indomitable:

To me it makes sense. If you're a Xenophobe, then you will likely not get along with anyone and that's demonstrated in a variety of ways. It's simply not just a case of being genocidal but it's rooted in a distrust of those who are different.

So, even a "cordial" exchange could be very different depending on the participants and that's what I think the modifier represents. It represents the inability of that civilization to properly understand diplomacy because their ethics inform undiplomatic behaviour.

So, for example, if I'm a xenophobic society.. and I'm working on an alliance... or peace treaty... I might characterize it this way "We're allying ourselves with inferior peoples because we need security." That's how the xenophobe would define that relationship. Sure, there's sort of "peaceful" vibe to it, but on the other side of that negotiation there are peoples who don't understand that mindset and might be worried about it.

As opposed to to a xenophile... Who would, in the same situation, characterize their treaty in this way "Different people coming together to achieve great things! We embrace our differences!"

It's much easier to negotiate with peoples whose fundamental values embrace the differences in people rather than distance themselves because of differences.

A VERY simplistic example on a small scale is that it's easier to get along with an extrovert rather than an introvert. Introvert's aren't evil... but their social "default" could make connecting with other people difficult. Same idea. The xenophobe's default position is inward facing, therefore they lack the skills to relate and empathize and negotiate with either neutral or outward facing civilizations.

Your error is equating xenophobia with supremacy.

[Artanis]

Indeed. Xenophobia is so much more diverse than just supremacy.

[LAG]

Escrito originalmente por LovelessAncient:

Your error is equating xenophobia with supremacy.

Get off my lawn Galaxy

[Yang]

Escrito originalmente por avanguardiaHusaria:

Lol, you guys are trying to teach an educated historian with a specialty on Fascism on how Nazism worked. That's just not how it was. Nazi Germany was inherently isolationist as well. They weren't interested in world dominion, they weren't interested in spreading Nazism. They wanted to unite the German people, and have their vengeance. Another thing was the Lebensraum, but that was inherently on Polish and Russian soil. Nazi Germany was allied with democracies, socialist states, and so on. They weren't purge-happy outside the Endlösung, which was scapegoatism.
Italy wasn't purge-happy, outside Ethiopia and Tunisia, which was warring, not organized purge. They didn't purge their own people either, and even the pope demoted Hitler (and Catholicism was an inherent part of Italianitá and razza). The Italians joined the Nazis as opportunists, not as kindred. The Japanese were against the USSR, and saw an ally in Germany.
If you say Nazi Germany was inherently against other government types and perspectives, then you're basically denying that only Norway had a fascist puppet-government. ♥♥♥♥, Hitler even helped the Romanians quash the Iron Guard, the Legion of Archangel Michael, an ultafascist movement. They liberated Ukraine from the USSR. They helped the Finnish against the USSR.
Hitler had a succesfull and completely non-idealogical diplomatic agenda.

Xenophobia is not racism. It's a fear of strangers. This can translate into purgation, yes - racism. But also isolationism.
So yes. I know exactly what xenophobia is. If Paradox meant for xenophobia to be racism, then call it that. But again, xenophobia is not inherently racism.
Xenophobia doesn't dictate any way of living, it dictates how you view strangers. Xenos, is Koiné and translates directly into foreigner, or stranger. Phobia translates directly into fear. Nowhere in the word xenophobia is racism implied.

BUT that's not my point. My point is that OTHER nations get a hit to diplomacy because I am afraid of strangers. Something there doesn't make sense.

I was gonna remark, neither the Nazis nor the rest of the Axis were xenophobic - racist yes, but as you've already said racism isn't xenophobia.

When you wonder why empires tend not to like xenophobes, I think it's because xenophobes are more hostile and for some reason the developers overquantify how much this would affect negotiations. Similarly threat levels of -1000 are ludicrous, especially when I'm offering them a non-aggression pact.

[Prydzen ᛋᛟ]

Escrito originalmente por Yang:

Escrito originalmente por avanguardiaHusaria:

Lol, you guys are trying to teach an educated historian with a specialty on Fascism on how Nazism worked. That's just not how it was. Nazi Germany was inherently isolationist as well. They weren't interested in world dominion, they weren't interested in spreading Nazism. They wanted to unite the German people, and have their vengeance. Another thing was the Lebensraum, but that was inherently on Polish and Russian soil. Nazi Germany was allied with democracies, socialist states, and so on. They weren't purge-happy outside the Endlösung, which was scapegoatism.
Italy wasn't purge-happy, outside Ethiopia and Tunisia, which was warring, not organized purge. They didn't purge their own people either, and even the pope demoted Hitler (and Catholicism was an inherent part of Italianitá and razza). The Italians joined the Nazis as opportunists, not as kindred. The Japanese were against the USSR, and saw an ally in Germany.
If you say Nazi Germany was inherently against other government types and perspectives, then you're basically denying that only Norway had a fascist puppet-government. ♥♥♥♥, Hitler even helped the Romanians quash the Iron Guard, the Legion of Archangel Michael, an ultafascist movement. They liberated Ukraine from the USSR. They helped the Finnish against the USSR.
Hitler had a succesfull and completely non-idealogical diplomatic agenda.

Xenophobia is not racism. It's a fear of strangers. This can translate into purgation, yes - racism. But also isolationism.
So yes. I know exactly what xenophobia is. If Paradox meant for xenophobia to be racism, then call it that. But again, xenophobia is not inherently racism.
Xenophobia doesn't dictate any way of living, it dictates how you view strangers. Xenos, is Koiné and translates directly into foreigner, or stranger. Phobia translates directly into fear. Nowhere in the word xenophobia is racism implied.

BUT that's not my point. My point is that OTHER nations get a hit to diplomacy because I am afraid of strangers. Something there doesn't make sense.

I was gonna remark, neither the Nazis nor the rest of the Axis were xenophobic - racist yes, but as you've already said racism isn't xenophobia.

When you wonder why empires tend not to like xenophobes, I think it's because xenophobes are more hostile and for some reason the developers overquantify how much this would affect negotiations. Similarly threat levels of -1000 are ludicrous, especially when I'm offering them a non-aggression pact.

usually you get -1000 for not having enough trust. nothing to do with being xenophobe.

[LAG]

Escrito originalmente por Yang:

Escrito originalmente por avanguardiaHusaria:

Lol, you guys are trying to teach an educated historian with a specialty on Fascism on how Nazism worked. That's just not how it was. Nazi Germany was inherently isolationist as well. They weren't interested in world dominion, they weren't interested in spreading Nazism. They wanted to unite the German people, and have their vengeance. Another thing was the Lebensraum, but that was inherently on Polish and Russian soil. Nazi Germany was allied with democracies, socialist states, and so on. They weren't purge-happy outside the Endlösung, which was scapegoatism.
Italy wasn't purge-happy, outside Ethiopia and Tunisia, which was warring, not organized purge. They didn't purge their own people either, and even the pope demoted Hitler (and Catholicism was an inherent part of Italianitá and razza). The Italians joined the Nazis as opportunists, not as kindred. The Japanese were against the USSR, and saw an ally in Germany.
If you say Nazi Germany was inherently against other government types and perspectives, then you're basically denying that only Norway had a fascist puppet-government. ♥♥♥♥, Hitler even helped the Romanians quash the Iron Guard, the Legion of Archangel Michael, an ultafascist movement. They liberated Ukraine from the USSR. They helped the Finnish against the USSR.
Hitler had a succesfull and completely non-idealogical diplomatic agenda.

Xenophobia is not racism. It's a fear of strangers. This can translate into purgation, yes - racism. But also isolationism.
So yes. I know exactly what xenophobia is. If Paradox meant for xenophobia to be racism, then call it that. But again, xenophobia is not inherently racism.
Xenophobia doesn't dictate any way of living, it dictates how you view strangers. Xenos, is Koiné and translates directly into foreigner, or stranger. Phobia translates directly into fear. Nowhere in the word xenophobia is racism implied.

BUT that's not my point. My point is that OTHER nations get a hit to diplomacy because I am afraid of strangers. Something there doesn't make sense.

I was gonna remark, neither the Nazis nor the rest of the Axis were xenophobic - racist yes, but as you've already said racism isn't xenophobia.

When you wonder why empires tend not to like xenophobes, I think it's because xenophobes are more hostile and for some reason the developers overquantify how much this would affect negotiations. Similarly threat levels of -1000 are ludicrous, especially when I'm offering them a non-aggression pact.

checked if they had wary or hostile attitude? or at the vrey bare minimum what the -1000 was?

[Shin]

Escrito originalmente por LovelessAncient:

Escrito originalmente por Indomitable:

To me it makes sense. If you're a Xenophobe, then you will likely not get along with anyone and that's demonstrated in a variety of ways. It's simply not just a case of being genocidal but it's rooted in a distrust of those who are different.

So, even a "cordial" exchange could be very different depending on the participants and that's what I think the modifier represents. It represents the inability of that civilization to properly understand diplomacy because their ethics inform undiplomatic behaviour.

So, for example, if I'm a xenophobic society.. and I'm working on an alliance... or peace treaty... I might characterize it this way "We're allying ourselves with inferior peoples because we need security." That's how the xenophobe would define that relationship. Sure, there's sort of "peaceful" vibe to it, but on the other side of that negotiation there are peoples who don't understand that mindset and might be worried about it.

As opposed to to a xenophile... Who would, in the same situation, characterize their treaty in this way "Different people coming together to achieve great things! We embrace our differences!"

It's much easier to negotiate with peoples whose fundamental values embrace the differences in people rather than distance themselves because of differences.

A VERY simplistic example on a small scale is that it's easier to get along with an extrovert rather than an introvert. Introvert's aren't evil... but their social "default" could make connecting with other people difficult. Same idea. The xenophobe's default position is inward facing, therefore they lack the skills to relate and empathize and negotiate with either neutral or outward facing civilizations.

Your error is equating xenophobia with supremacy.

Supremecy is the belief that "Might Meakes Right".

Xenophobia is in inherent distrust of those who are different.

Therefor it would be difficult for either society to negotiate peace terms relative to their opposing ideologies.

It's easier to talk peace and prosperity with a Pacifist. It's a more predictable mindset. Xenophobia, whille not inherently violent (but could easily lead to violence) is fearful of people who are different. Thus, negotiating with a society that distrusts people who are different will be more difficult than negotiating with a society that is open to the differences between people.

Not a complicated concept. By definition Xenophobia:
"intense or irrational dislike or fear of people from other countries."

That definition would definitely explain why it's way harder to do any kind of diplomacy. If you have an irrational dislike or fear of people from other societies... then negotiating with those people will be very difficult, especially in contrast to a xenophile.

Whereas a xenophile is:
"an individual who is attracted to foreign peoples, manners, or cultures"

Compare the interactions between cultures. Xenophobes would be afraid and distrustful while the Xenophiles want to learn and understand. It's pretty clear why one has diplomatic penalties and the other doesn't.

Same with Militarist and Pacifist. It'll always be easier living next to someone who abhors violence rather than someone who embraces it.