Talk:Exalted

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Role-playing games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of role-playing games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Role-playing gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Role-playing gamesTemplate:WikiProject Role-playing gamesrole-playing game articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Every other page gone

Why has all other source information about Exalted vanished? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.240.236.8 (talk) 14:42, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bodhisattvaspath (talk) 03:37, 6 January 2008 (UTC): As the author of the vast majority of those other pages, it was "felt" by other users on Wikipedia that those articles were not significant enough to be added to an encyclopedic entry... Or something of that nature.[reply]

It is a shame that the good information that wikipedia had about the game is gone. Seems odd that there are pages and pages about different TV shows, but something with as much depth as this Role-Playing Game isn't allowed more then one page. Did they feel that this was some sort of marketing ploy by White Wolf? Or just that it was not very important?--Alabrax (talk) 17:54, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bodhisattvaspath (talk) 18:26, 9 January 2008 (UTC): I believe they felt it wasn't important. I had thought about attempting to rewrite the information in a more wikipedia-approved format, but I wasn't sure I wanted to put all the time and effort back into it. Also, since television shows are much more visible, I think there's far less of a challenge to their verifiability than there is to a game that seems to get few reviews (insofar as what I've been able to find online, anyway).[reply]

--Alabrax (talk) 19:27, 9 January 2008 (UTC) So if there were more reviews of Exalted we would be more important, or at least more verifiable? Hmm I will have to search for some reviews for Exalted, I know they are out there. Also I think I will check out the D20 page to see how much information they seem to have on that. I am not for or against either system, however I would contest that any one gaming system is more important than another with out some very good reasons. I am fairly new to editing and authoring on this wiki so I am not 100% what they are looking for other then outside views on the material.[reply]

Lonesoldier 04:44, 25 February 2008 (UTC) I can't directly link since there's no permalink, but check out the rpg.net reviews page. Click "Power Search" and then under "Product Line" type Exalted. Voilà, dozens of reviews.

Bodhisattvaspath (talk) 03:03, 26 February 2008 (UTC): Thank you for the link and information, Lonesoldier. While I think that rpg.net is a great resource, I'm not sure if it is considered a significant enough source to qualify by the standards of Wikipedia, and I am hopeful to find more peer-review (rather than review by individuals) in reputable publications about table-top gaming. Dragon Magazine would be a good example of such, but it doesn't deal with White Wolf lines if I'm not mistaken. However, something along those lines would be awesome if someone knew where to find it.[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)

Just out of curiousity, what are these other usages, and are they things that belong on Wikipedia? Almafeta 05:34, 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)

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)
Take a look at it. -- Netoholic @ 21:57, 2005 Jan 11 (UTC)
Oh, you already did it! Sure, good place for a disambig page. Dbenbenn 00:06, 12 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)
But that's what we do. This is not Wiktionary, and if an encyclopedia topic happens to be a verb participle, that's still what we name it. ADH (t&m) 19:14, Jan 11, 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)[reply]

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.[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Audochthon did what?

According to the current version of the article, "The Primordials took the unshaped chaos that was later to be called the Wyld, and with a single blow from Authochthon's great hammer, forged the world, called Creation.". Was the origin of Creation retconned, and, if so, can someone provide a source for this? As of 1st edition, Creation was made by the Gaia and Cytherea. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 08:15, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moreso, Creation is Gaia, and might also have been part-Cytherea before the Primordial War. I went ahead and deleted the reference. Aprogressivist (talk) 14:04, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually according to Exalted Author Michael Goodwin Gaia is not actually Creation, not in the same sense that the Unconquered Sun is actually the sun. --Alabrax (talk) 16:30, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

References and Sources

Bodhisattvaspath (talk) 18:20, 7 January 2008 (UTC): I believe I've done an okay job so far of referencing materials from Exalted without violating any of White-Wolf's copyright. If anyone else wants to assist in this endeavor, please feel free to do so. The more references we can cite, the better for the article.[reply]

OK, it's a game, we get it!

Do we really _need_ to have "In this game setting", "within the game", "Within the game’s history" or "According to the authors of the game" in EVERY $%^&ING PARAGRAPH?!? 66.188.98.83 (talk) 20:31, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]