Talk:Exalted/Archive 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 |
What is Exalted about?
I cam here looking for info about Exalted. There's a lot of detail about the different types of Exalted and the rest of the background. But as a game, there's not much that really tells me what it's about. Who are the players, how are they different from other exalted, and what do they go about doing? The Overview section has one sentence about the player characters, and then goes straight to a history lesson. The Gameplay section has very little detail relevant to gameplay. Info about sales records and thematic connections to World of Darkness is worth mentioning, but it doesn't pertain to gameplay. --Steveg99
- If you only have the Core book, the players are typically going to be Solar Exalted (ie. "Lawgivers" in the 2nd Edition parlance). However, it is possible to run the system with mortals but then much of the book is worthless (eg. all of the charms, some of the equipment, etc.)
- The Solars are the most powerful of the exalted types (with a possible exception with the Alchemical and Abyssal Exalted). During their prime the Solars were haughty and proud which lead to their fall. This fall was orchestrated by the Sidereal and carried out by the Terrestrial Exalted, after which they started a propaganda campaign against the Solars that has lasted for about 700 hundred years (Thus most Sidereals and Dragon-Bloods hate Solars with passion, and normal people fear them). The Lunars are more of a mixed bag (especially in light of the information contained in the 2nd Edition) as to whether they will aid or slay a Solar they come across. The Infernal and Abyssal Exalted will kill any exalted that they can not convert to serve their masters. I don't remember the the motivations for Alchemical Exalted at the moment, other than they didn't exist in the 1st Age and so have no specific animosity against any other group (I'll look it up sometime tonight).
- The Exalted can do anything they want, quite literally, there isn't an over-arcing meta-plot that they are trying to accomplish in the books. However, most common plots in 2nd Edition are bring law to Creation, defeating the Abyssal Exalted which are an affront to the design of creation, and/or expanding Creations borders which were much larger in the 1st Age (Creation was very much eroded by the attack of the Fair Folk-a sort of Incarnations of Chaos). (There are "evil" Solars in some of the splat books, in particular Ses who in the Night Caste book enslaved another Solar to his will.) Jontu Kontar 19:08, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for the info. I'd like to see the article itself to go into the details I mentioned.--Steveg99
Replacement Overview section?
I'm thinking about replacing the Overview with something like the following paragraphs. I would be interested in any comments.
The basic premise of the core book is that the player characters are the chosen of the Unconquered Sun. These Solar Exalted (aka. "Lawgivers") were the leaders in the war against the primordial masters of the gods. After the war the Unconquered Sun gave to the Solars the running of creation with the other Exalted as their servants. Unbeknownst to all, the fallen primordials had cursed the Exalted in proportion to their responsibility in the war. This curse fell hardest against the Solars and in their pride they were destroyed by a coalition of the Sidereal and Terrestrial Exalted.
Recently the mystic wards barring the Solars from being reborn in creation have begun to fail. Their power has begun to leak into creation and find those who are worthy.
Jontu Kontar 19:18, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
ISBN v WW SKU
Doesn't it make more sense to list ISBN's (which are used by most book sellers) rather than the SKU's that White Wolf creates? Jontu Kontar 14:24, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- I've added the ISBNs for all the 2nd ed books, but kept the SKUs as they do show the structure of the book series. Enlightened Bystander 18:56, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Page rename/move discussion
(from Wikipedia:Requested moves)
Exalted (role-playing game) → Exalted
As it is, Exalted redirects to Exaltation, an article about a belief in the LDS faith, with only two possible confusions; both are explained in the article. "Exalted" is the proper name of the roleplaying game, and there are no terms in Wikipedia that could be confused with the game, so the (role-playing game) section of the title is unnecessary.
- Oppose. Why not simply change Exalted to redirect to Exalted (role-playing game)? That way, from Exalted you can check "what links here" to see if there are any LDS pages accidentally linking to the wrong thing. Furthermore, you won't have to move the role-playing game again when someone finds another meaning for exalted (Christian rock band, perhaps?). Dbenbenn 03:28, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- I kindly ask you to read my points below and reevaluate your vote. Thanks. Cburnett 07:30, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose. The role-playing game is not the primary usage of the term, or even a common usage. -Sean Curtin 05:04, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)
- STRONGLY Support Look at the history of all this, I'll outline them here:
- Exaltation was created Aug 2003
- Exalted was created Sep 2003 as the game
- Common Latter-day Saint perceptions was created Nov 2003
- Common Latter-day Saint perceptions uses Exalted from creation
- Gtrmp moves the game article from Exalted to Exalted (role-playing game) so that this one link doesn't have to be changed to [[exaltation|exalted]]
- Gtrmp adds a link to Exalted (role-playing game) on Exaltation and calls Exaltation a disambiguation page
- Points to note:
- Exaltation does not use "exalted" anywhere except to link to the game
- Only ONE page uses Exalted that actually means to link to Exaltation
- Conclusion:
- Exalted (the game) was moved and Exalted changed to a redirect to Exaltation because of one link, which all could have be averted by doing [[Exaltation|Exalted]] on Common Latter-day Saint perceptions
- No reason to change "Exalted" to a redirect just because of a suffix change (i.e., "-ation" -> "-ed") when there's an article already at "Exalted" that uses the name fully
- The previously point especially holds true considering the redirect was done for one link
- Since "Exalted" (as religious) has one link and "Exalted" (as game) has a good dozen links then it's clear that the wikipedia usage favors the game over the religious term.
- Cburnett 07:27, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- "Wikipedia usage favors the game over the religious term" does not mean "this is the most common usage of the term". It means "this usage is more likely to get linked to in an article". The article name wasn't changed for that one link, it was changed because of the imprecise and ambiguaous name. -Sean Curtin 03:26, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)
- Cburnett makes this all out to be more complicated than it really is. The religious term is Exaltation, not Exalted, and redirecting the latter to the former seems inappropriate and entirely unuseful. Our article on the game is the only one with that exact title, and shouldn't be displaced in favor of a tenuous grammar redirect. Support. ADH (t&m) 07:42, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)
- Your conclusion is exactly the same as mine. Cburnett 07:56, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose; if I am writing an article and link to exalted; I am much more likely to want the link to point to exaltation. --SPUI 07:48, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- So far, only one article points to Exalted but Exaltation has 15+. Wiki usage disagrees with your assumption. Cburnett 07:56, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Complex solution - Leave Exaltation as an article about the religious connotations, create a disambig page at Exalt, make Exalted redirect to Exalt (proper verb handling), move Exalted (role-playing game) to Exalted (game) (shorter disambig since only one game is named that). -- Netoholic @ 08:20, 2005 Jan 11 (UTC)
- I like this idea, if there's content that should go in exalt besides a dicdef. Dbenbenn 16:55, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Works for me, and the redirect makes more sense that way. I've added a disambiguation note to exaltation pointing to exalt. -Sean Curtin 03:26, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose. If I type in Exalted I don't expect to read about a RPG. It's a minor usage that can be dealt with by primary topic disambig at Exaltation. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:42, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose. IMO it is a bad idea to populate common words with titles of novels, games, whatever. Mikkalai 19:01, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Support I don't think there's any possibility of someone putting in what is one particular conjugation and not expecting the RPG --Dtcdthingy 02:14, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Support --Trodel 18:33, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose. Mikkalai is absolutely right. At some point we will break down this ridiculous firewall between the encyclopedia and the dictionary, and from that point will link to the dictionary definition if that is the most appropriate and informative thing to do. Disambiguation can be pre-emptive: the primary meaning of the word ‘exalted’ is neither the roleplaying game nor the specific sense in one particular religion, and we should not give away the word ‘exalted’ — or anything comparable — to this fleeting interest of a tiny minority of anglophones. Netoholic’s actions at exalt and exalted are spot-on. — Ford 21:27, 2005 Jan 14 (UTC)
- Support. Doing this move would allow us to correct nine links from [[Exalted (role-playing game)|Exalted]] to [[Exalted]]. Surely that's good? Noisy | Talk 02:15, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)
- Support, agree with above. Grue 12:15, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Support There are no common usages for the term exalted. "Exalted" is the proper name for the RPG but a misdeclension of the religous term, I think its pretty clear we should leave the rpg where it is. Lampros 03:01, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
No clear consensus yet for page move, partially resolved by creating Exalt disambig and redirect from Exalted. -- Netoholic @ 02:54, 2005 Jan 18 (UTC)
Dragon Kings
There seems to be no mention of them, or even a plan to include them in this wiki. They are at least as important to the setting as Mountain Folk, and definitely more important than the Alchemicals.
Bodhisattvaspath 01:24, 31 May 2007 (UTC): Read the section entitled Other Magical Beings. You find the Dragon Kings there. There's not a large write-up, as there isn't all that much canonical material on them.
Sub Article Lead Sections
A lot of the sub pages for Exalted start with a reasonably similar description of the Exalted game, followed almost consequentially by a (generally smaller) section summarising the actual article, which tends to distract from the article, and is hard to justify with Wikipedia's [[WP:LS| Lead Section Style Guide. Might I suggest replacing the lead section of articles with something along the line of:
- Article Name is a character/group/place in the fictional Exalted setting by White Wolf Publishing.
Followed by several sentences giving a summary of the article. I've modified the lead section of Unconquered Sun in this style as an example. What do people think? Enlightened Bystander 21:51, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Half Castes
Along with the Dragon Kings and God Blooded, it would be worthwhile to make a section on the Half Castes. 64.50.201.98 15:20, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
"Mythic Fantasy"?
The game is classified as high fantasy, but may be more accurately described as "mythic fantasy," as the original developer specifically avoided drawing on J. R. R. Tolkien for inspiration.
Really? Why? It seems to be based off of the assumption that high fantasy means "Tolkien inspired" (not to say that it is high fantasy, but just that high fantasy doesn't mean as such) and, reading the summary, I'm not seeing much/anything that fits the definition of mythic fantasy/fiction over on the fantasy subgenres page. — g026r (talk) 20:43, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Influences
Does the influence section need sources or references that appear in reliable, third-party publications? If an author aknowledges one of a book's influences, does it really matter if it's in the book itself or a reliable third-party publication? -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 04:30, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
- I agree, it has the author as a source, that's good enough. I'll remove the tag. Carl.bunderson (talk) 21:33, 24 December 2007 (UTC)