My dude, I would absolutely change the names of those paths to avoid political bickering over terms and avoid the fate of Stellaris and other such endless meaningless debates
I'm legit curious as to what happened with stellaris in that term, i dont remember the systems of government being badly done, pretty traditional in terms of well any game with that kind of "type" governance. Im assuming its mostly people like well the creator of this game that have no idea what any of the systems mean that would have "issue" with something like stellaris.
also
Creator if you do see this, im not trying to attack you, just you clearly dont understand democracy, communism/socialism (which is what the second path is describing) tyranny either potentially(as i have not played the game). Anarchy(possibly you dont understand this either) in any of its forms central principle is lack of centralized governance(aka leadership). Now if you have a weak ruler with few who respects their rule and is therefore going against the "laws" that is not anarchy but some other form of governance with a poorly affected implementation of rules/punishment/etc, basically a leadership problem. and sure at its extreme could be considered anarchy, as simply no one is listening to the "leader". If that is how it is implemented, then it is not wrong to call it that, but it is going to be confusing to anyone that has not played the game. Because the first thing people are going to think of with Anarchy and "impromptu new world startup" is not any of the other "forms" of anarchy, but one of complete and total lack of social cohesion, moars, ideals, etc. Which means there is no leader. That form is basically guaranteed to fall into complete tyranny really quickly though as the person with the biggest stick...suddenly has the loudest voice. Which means you basically have TWO "tyranny" paths, one in which you are the tyrant, and one in which you are not.
edit: i dont think i really made my point well, so figured id add on slightly. By what im saying of you not understanding your naming convention clearly(which clearly a lot dont) perhaps it would be better to instead of using words more often to describe political forms of governance, you use words to describe the type of "ruler". Since in each case you have a ruler listed in the description.
Those would be based on your description:
Tyrannical ruler- which doesnt necessitate evil, just that basically its your way or the highway
Egalitarian ruler- which is basically a everyone is equal/can do what they want so long as its not harming others
Despotic ruler- similar to tyranny, but has the added connotation of corruption/evil.
