Ethics System

I'm just going to say that there was a huge debate back on the Stellaris forums about the Authoritarian/Egalitarian axis. One side maintained that it was more well-defined than Individualist/Collectivist, others maintained that the axis was a false dictonomy - citing the egalitarian motives yet authoritarian rule of communist states.
Your egalitarian-authoritarian axis seems to be an individualist-collectivist axis as it was portrayed in earlier versions of Stellaris: individualist favored democracy and free trade, while collectivist favored autocracy and slavery.

There was a mod out there that split the freedom/not-freedom axis into three different ones: Individualism/Collectivism, Libertarian/Authoritarian, and Egalitarian/Elitist. The problem is that occupying two of these axes kinda precludes the other one.

(partial monologue about individualism)

A few comments on the axis:

Authoritarianism vs Egalitarianism
As ATP pointed out, that could be a little too restrictive, leaving out authoritarian individualist governments (like napoleonic France) and fully collectivist ones (like communism), plus some forms of government could favor neither (for example, feudalism and theocracies).

Militarism vs Pacifism
I think the idea of militarism could use some work. Militarism isn't just people going "Let's take their stuff because we stronker", but the belief that military actions are a valid way to solving problems and to promote national interests. For example, if an evil dictator starts genociding a population, a militarist nation would try to oppose it while a pacifist nation would limit itself to diplomatic actions. It also plays a factor in how is the military (and police for that matter) perceived by the population: a militaristic person considers them heroes, worthy of respect, while a pacifist one could see them as opressors. This could also affect how much power does the military have in a country, or the amount of mercenaries it produces, etc.
Also, losing a lot of wars doesn't make a society pacifistic, if anything it leads to revanchism and even more militarism.

Materialism vs Spiritualism
Materialism doesn't necesarilly mean people will become Scrooge McDuck (especially if the society is collectivist), and likewise spiritualism doesn't necessarily imply a dogmatic society (especially if there's an innovation-tradition axis). Plus, since materialism is a philosophical view, it'd be kinda silly they reject philosophy xD.

Xenophobia vs Xenophilia
Xenophobic nations aren't necesarilly backwards (Ancient Greece, Rome and Nazi Germany were xenophobic, and they weren't backwards, at least technologically). I've also never heard of a xenophilic nation in human history (at most they are tolerant). I think Nationalist-Globalist could be a better dychotomy, tho it could also be related to how individualist or collectivist the nation is (plus "globalism" in the space stage sounds kinda dumb).

Tradition vs Innovation
While in theory i see nothing wrong with this one, in practice i think it will lead to the player always going for innovation (since tech is very very important). Plus again, Rome was traditionalist and yet was very adaptative (for example adapting military tactics of their oponents, like horse archers).
Also it's kinda awkward when considering the other axis (how does a traditionalist xenophilic materialist nation works, for example?).

Factions

So as explained in the first post populations will proportionally and dynamically shift between factions (The factors that cause people to choose ethics will be explained in a future post). But what is the consequence of choosing ethics? Well immediately, nothing. But when people of a certain ethic get upset and/or educated, they will join factions, and factions will be major participants of the political side of the game.

Whenever a subset of the population gets unhappy enough, there will be a “diceroll” that determines which faction they join. It will be based off of how closely their ethics match and other factors. They will then join the faction and increase its influence. If there are no factions close enough in ethics, and enough people with the similar ethics are unhappy, a new one faction that suits them will be generated. On the other hand, when people become happy they will leave factions and decrease their influence. If a faction has a low influence for a long enough time it will despawn.

Faction happiness will depend on what issues they care about, and what the government is currently doing about those issues. Some events will give a temporary happiness boost, like building a temple to please the clerical faction, while others will keep factions permanently happy, like allowing conscription to please the imperialist faction. When factions get very unhappy from unmet demands and have a large amount of influence, they will rebel and cause serious dissent, instability, and national crises or revolutions or civil wars.

Factions will favour certain policies, oppose the alternatives to that policy, and be neutral towards policies they don’t concern with (for example an Imperialist supports Conscription, is against Voluntary Service, and has no particular opinion on Religious Policy). In more democratic forms of government this will come up during factions voting for or against major changes in policy.

The player, acting as the government, can embrace, endorse, suppress, or outlaw certain factions. This will affect their influence and also please or anger the people that follow them. Certain other factors can also affect influence and happiness, such as being represented in the government, government type (e.g. inherited succession increases the power of the aristocratic faction) having the government ruler be from a faction, and cultural traits that push people towards certain ethics or factions.

The following is the list of factions I have so far (work in progress). I went through some of them to show what sort of policies they would support. Each one is meant to represent a different ideology. They are categorized by their main ethic, but can have other associated ethics as well that will cause people of that ethic to also gravitate towards them.

Militarist Factions

Imperialist/Expansionist (Militarist) – Expansionists support dominance and conquest of neighbours, rivalry with other threatening nations, and self-sufficiency.
             Support: Wars of aggression, high military spending, self-sufficiency, rivalry with other countries, conscription/mandatory service
Warrior (Militarist, Tradition) – Warrior factions want a militarization of society and forming a military elite.
    Support: Wars of aggression, high military spending, domination of the government by their faction, military education, restriction to army/officer access, warrior caste, supporting militaristic     culture
Interventionist (Militarist, Xenophile) – Interventionists want involvement in foreign affairs and to act as a world police.
    Support: Wars of intervention, high military spending, vassalization of neighbours, establishing puppet and protectorate states, conscription/mandatory service

Pacifist Factions

Pacifist (Pacifist) – Pacifist factions want decreased aggression and demilitarization. They are also against militaristic culture (cultural traits that increase people’s gravitation towards the militarism ethic).
    Support: Alliances, peaceful deals with other countries, reduced military spending, non-military education, no conscription, suppressing militaristic culture
Prosperity (Pacifist, Materialist) – Prosperity factions want prosperity through cooperation with other countries. They believe that war is destructive and peace is the greatest window for the economy to thrive.
    Support: Peaceful deals with other countries, alliances, free trade, trade agreements

Authoritarian Factions

Totalitarian (Authoritarian, Militarist? Xenophile?) – Totalitarians want a powerful and autocratic government with minimal dissent, as well as near total control of society by the government and ruling ideology.
    Support: Single party state, suppression of political dissent, absolutist rule, state media and propaganda and education.
Aristocratic (Authoritarian, Tradition) – Aristocrats want power invested in local inherited landlords and laws that support the landed elite.
    Support: Inherited succession, limited citizenship, domination of the government by their faction, decentralized government, limited/full slavery
Bureaucratic (Authoritarian, Tradition) – Bureaucrats want a large and centralized government that supports a political elite of civil servants and administrators.
    Support: Appointment, domination of the government by their faction, large and centralized government, high government spending, government control in fields like healthcare, education,     etc.
Monarchist (Authoritarian) – Monarchists want power invested in a powerful monarch.
    Support: Inherited succession, large and centralized government, high government spending, absolutist government

Egalitarian Factions

Populist (Egalitarian) – Populists want to support the commoners and their quality of life such as population growth and health, entertainment and happiness, etc. They believe in the whims of the people and the public majority, particularly the poor.
    Support: Direct democracy, welfare, enfranchisement.
Liberal (Egalitarian, Innovation) – Want a devolution of national power and promotion of liberty
    Support: Federalism, Local Autonomy, Free Trade, Freedom of Religion, Representation, Government Upkeep should be a small fraction of expenses
Communist (Egalitarian, Tradition) – Want a planned and redistributive society/economy.
    Support: Public education, public healthcare, welfare, planned economy
Separatist (Egalitarian, Innovation)
    Support: Autonomy or independence for their target province(s)

Materialist Factions

Industrialist (Materialist) – Want to support large scale industry and production.
    Support: Relaxed or no labour laws, etc.
Guilds (Materialist, Xenophobe) – Want to support local industry and crafts.
Mercantile (Materialist, Xenophile) – Want to support broader trade and foreign investment.
Capitalist (Materialist, Egalitarian) – Want the state free from the economy.
Socialist (Materialist, Authoritarian) – Want to have state run economies.
Corporatist/Corporatocrats (Materialist, Authoritarian) – Want to have a society run by corporations.
    Support: Domination of the government by their faction, corporate led education, privatized education, healthcare, and other services
Robocrat (Materialist, Authoritarian) – Robocrats want a society run by robots.
    Support: Domination of the government, large government with high spending, many state run services, robots and AI allowed, robot citizenship
Technocrat (Materialist, Authoritarian) – Want society run by the technical elite

Spiritualist Factions

Religious/Clergy/Clerical/Priesthood (Spiritualist, Tradition) – Promotion of state religion and church power.
Spiritualist (Spiritualist, Egalitarian) – Freedom of religion and removal of materialist influences in society.
Environmentalist (Spiritualist, Tradition) – Protection of the environment.
Theocratic (Spiritualist, Authoritarian) – Religious control of the government and persecution of other religions.
Philosopher (Spiritualist, Innovation) – Focus society towards learning and morality.
Ascetic/Monk (Spiritualist, Tradition?) – A more extreme version of the Spiritualist faction?
Extremist/Fanaticist – Ideological fanatics and demagogues?
    Support: Propaganda, state media, suppression of dissent
Culture/Arts – Promotion of the arts and education

Xenophobe Factions

Nationalist (Xenophobe) – Dislike of all things foreign.
Patriotic? (Xenophobe, Militarist) – Glorification of the country?
Isolationist (Xenophobe, Pacifist) – Want separation from foreign affairs.
Supremacist (Xenophobe, Tradition) – Want promotion of primary species/culture

Xenophile Factions

Multicultural/Tolerant/Ecumenical/Xenoist (Xenophile) – Toleration and equality of foreigners.
Multilateralists/Globalists (Xenophile, Pacifist) – Cooperation and peace with other powers.

Innovation Factions

Radical/Progressive (Innovation) – Want to change policies to become more modern and up to date.
Technologist (Innovation, Materialist) – Want to promote research and technology.
Anarchist (Innovation, Egalitarian) – Want to remove as many government institutions as possible.
Rebel (Innovation) – Want to depose the current government.
Revolutionary (Innovation, Egalitarian) – Want to uproot current institutions and radically change society.

Tradition Factions

Reactionary (Tradition) – Want a return to previous policies.
Conservative (Tradition) – Want to preserve policies.
Culturist/Artistic (Tradition, Spiritualist) – Promote national culture and art and identity
Loyalist (Tradition, Authoritarian) – Support the government and current policies. Oppose people who oppose the government.
    Support: Suppressing/Outlawing other factions

And these are some other ideas I've had floating around:

Bankocrats – Want the society to be run by banks
Transhumanists/Transbeingists? Bioenhancementists? (Materialist, Innovation?)
Agrarian/Ruralists (Egalitarian, Tradition, Pacifist?) – Want a decentralized civilization living in rural communities.
Urbanists – Want urbanization and centralization of civilization
Labour/Workers/ Blue Collar/Craftsmen/Workers/Proletariat (Egalitarian, Materialist, Innovation?) – Support workers’ rights and rule by the workers
Suffragist? – Increased voting and representation for everyone
Abolitionist/Libertarian – Freedom from all forms of slavery or serfdom and full liberty for everyone
Universalist?
Inclusionist?
Slaveowners?
Elitist?

So, feel free to critique the current list of factions or suggest changes or additions or removals (bear in mind I was rushing this list as I reached the end).

Oh yeah my bad I should clarify that happiness completely is independent of influence. Happiness is just based on how many of their issues/objectives are fulfilled, as well as temporary boosts from things like constructing buildings or endorsing them.

Influence comes mainly from membership, and the more people join the faction the more influential it gets. Certain other factors like endorsing a faction also increases its influence.

So building a bunch of temples would please the clerical faction for example but not necessarily increase their influence.

EDIT: Oh I think I misunderstood you. If a faction was to get many of its goals fulfilled and become happy, the influence would actually naturally decline anyways because its members would become happier and thus leave the faction, decreasing its influence.

These are really interesting ideas.

Another way of interacting with these dichotomies is that the player could be presented with choices which push their society one way or another by a small amount. Moreover certain options are only available to certain nations.

For example in order to have conscription maybe you need militarism > 0.1.

You get an event "A great general has died, do you want to a) have a grand funeral which costs $1m dollars and gives +0.3 militarism or b) a small funeral." Which then gives the player some measure of control over the way their nation progresses but not fully, for example if you are broke maybe you really want this increase in militarism but can't afford it.

On the subject of events I think a mega-failing of CK2 is that there are loads of events with dominant strategies. Like "do you want your child to be slothful or diligent?" comes up and it's a stupid choice. I think all events that have a choice associated should either be between two bonuses or two penalties. Like "do you want your kid to fight in a tournament? a) they become brave but 20% chance of wounded, b) they become kind but 20% chance of craven" is a much better event.

If we wrote a big library of events, like a couple of thousand (I'm sure the community would be great for generating them) then every playthrough would be unique as you dealt with the events that shaped your nation.

Firstly I think these systems end up much the same. So either militarism < 0.1 means lots of pacifist factions in the government which means conscription won't be approved or militarism < 0.1 means conscription is not allowed. It's all the same in the end, if you see what I mean. "Making your society more militaristic" is the same in both aswell.

Secondly, and maybe this is a different discussion, but can you describe the main gameplay loop for the player, and who they are and what powers they have? Like in CK2 you are a character in the world with only the powers of the character and you spend most of your time managing your family and court and only some managing affairs of state, over which you have limited control. In CIV you are omnipotent and immortal and you have absolute power over everything that happens in your society. All you do is large scale state decisions and you have full control.

It sounds like you are talking about a "limited power" form of government. Where you are presented with the factions that exist currently and then do you choose your government from them or is your government out of your control too? And then what powers do you have? Can you declare war when you like, can you change the government, can you make treaties, and you enact different policies? Like what are your levers of power.

Maybe one good idea would be to run a forum game where you are the computer and offer all the choices and someone else gets to play as the leader. Then you can get some feedback from them about whether it's fun and how it works etc. Like making events one by one is pretty easy. You could introduce the systems one by one and slowly work it up until it's a great game and then it'll be easy to program as it's already well designed.

crodnu I have read your posts again and I think you make a lot of good points. I agree that a good general idea is to make a positive statement for each ideology. E.g. militarism is great because your heroic military defends the nation while upholding national order. Pacifism is great because it allows room for cooperation and trade between nations.

"traditionalist xenophilic materialist"

I would think a society like that could be something like golden age Venice. So they are very traditional, they have a government mostly ruled by old men and have strong, fixed, ideas about how things should be done. They are xenophilic because they actively seek out products from other cultures and they are materialists because trade is their main concern.

Also I think there is a danger in saying "if you are a republic you have to do what the people say" from a gameplay perspective, as you pointed out for tradition vs innovation. Basically you don't want one type of government to be more fun that the others. I think it's fine if they're different, like maybe fighting elections is interesting vs being in control. But it's hard to play as a republic is being a monarchy is much more fun.

NickTheNick That's really cool. I can imagine that working really well as an interesting system.

I feel like the core balance of the whole system is about agency vs stability. So if you choose an authoritarian form of government then you get a lot of agency but your people are unhappy and may act out. If you choose a more democratic / republican form of government then you give up agency in exchange for stability.

My main questions are "are all points along this spectrum fun to play" and "how is it going to be balanced such that all points along the spectrum are viable"? I think both of these can only be answered through playtesting. For example if you are a democracy and you give up loads of agency and your legislature blocks you a lot of the time is that fun? If you are a dictator and you're are just facing endless revolts is that fun? Is it the case that you always end up playing in the middle of this system, if the ends are a nightmare why not always be a monarchy which is playable and not too unstable.

In general I think it's a really interesting system and it could really work. I think the challenge is to build a good foundation of playtesting to make sure it's fun. For example CIV 6 very much keeps the players mechanics the same always and makes government types give you boosts. Whereas CK2 limits the power of the player a lot and there are plenty of negative steam reviews from people who don't like that. So you'll need to work on it a lot to make sure it's good and balanced.

A robocracy would just be one of the above governments with robots in power, which is something not explained in this system but basically counts as a specific species being in power and can be controlled through policies that you set.