Okay so this is admittedly late to the previous Thaumaturgy discussion, but I got tired of all the sandbagging. So I decided to look at the rules and create a nice summary of required traits. Before though, a couple of disclaimers:
  1. These rules are hard to pick out from the 2e corebook and for that reason, I understand dissatisfaction.
  2. NPCs are not meant to use XP as advancement, so take any declarations with a grain of salt.
Alright! So 2e Thaumaturgy is divided into Arts (the classifications of procedures) and Degrees (Their complexity and efficacy). Making a baking soda volcano is 0th degree Alchemy, while refining lead to gold is 3rd degree. They are alternatively known as Apprentice, Initiate, Adept and Master Degrees.

  Minimum Occult for Procedure Minimum Occult for Art
Apprentice 1 dot; anyone can do this with no training 1 dot
Initiate 1 1
Adept 1 3
Master 3 5
  Procedure Training Time Unfavored/Favored Art Training Time Unfavored/Favored
  One week per procedure/1 day per procedure [Degree] Months/Weeks
  Procedure BP/XP Art BP/XP
  1bp for 3 procedures, 1xp per procedure 4bp/5bp per degree, 8/10xp per degree
You cannot train in arts without a teacher; this is explicit in the rules unless you are Occult 5, and that extends the Training Time to Years. You CAN however teach yourself Procedures.

So blah blah blah what does this all say: well, it says that anyone with a single dot of Occult can perform Apprentice level Procedures, and can learn up to Adept level procedures in ANY art. Ever. With just a single dot of Occult.

Is this systemically idea? Eh, I like how open it is once you really look at it, but I agree that rolling [Relevant Ability] would be better than focusing it all through Occult. I don't mind Occult Minimums when used well, but they weren't here.

There's more I could say but I'm tired.
 
I think relatively few people would immediately label A Song of Ice and Fire as high fantasy?

I mean, by my understanding the quote-unquote-official difference between "high" and "low" fantasy is that the former is set in an entirely imagined world, while the latter is set in the real world with imagined elements*, and people like JRR Tolkein who are adamant that their imagined world is a hidden part or history of the real one can fuck off because they make people who like to put things in neat boxes feel uncomfortable. The "official" difference between low fantasy and science fiction presumably being that we pretend the latter is actually rooted in reality (but not really), as opposed to being rooted in reality (but really not really).

Anyway, this kind of surprised me when I was told, because I'd always understood the difference between high and low fantasy to be one of tone and presentation – the difference between Avatar and District 9, to hop over a genre. The former is focused on existential battles of Good vs Evil (or whatever diametrically opposed causes the author chose to duke it out, such as Capitalism vs Communism) in a world that largely centres around the ideal-embodying protagonists (often but not always by way of prophecy), while the latter is more focused on "real people", driven as much by flaws as ideals, who often reluctantly scrabble their way through an adventure that they'd rather not have had, are probably not the cause or centre of, and may not even survive.

So by that definition, Lord of the Rings would be high fantasy, and A Song of Ice and Fire would be low fantasy. There's also a tendency to have the "fantastical" elements of the imagined setting take more of a front-and-centre role in what I understood to be high fantasy, but that's hardly a consistent or even particularly useful rule.

I might suggest "dark fantasy" as an alternate name for what I'd considered to be low fantasy, but alas – the bookstores have already decided that term refers to books where the undead mack on teenage girls.

Would I describe Exalted as high fantasy? Well… probably not, at least by my definitions. The "power level" of the protagonists and (often in practical terms not very prominent) background elements throw me off, but it's really more like low fantasy with a bunch of high fantasy protagonists from different books dumped into it for a world-spanning death match.

(amusingly, Warhammer Fantasy Battles would be high fantasy, and Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay would be low fantasy)
I think it's a complex question. I did some very basic research on fantasy subgenres the other day, and it's honestly kind of baffling how atomized the genre is. L. Sprague de Camp defined "heroic fantasy" and "sword-and-sorcery" as two terms for the same thing, citing Conan the Barbarian as its archetype; but now you get people talking about heroic fantasy and S&S as two different subgenres and Conan as an archetype of low fantasy. And now there are terms like dark fantasy, epic fantasy, and the more easily defined, cross-genres subtypes like science-fantasy and urban fantasy, and all those genres are in constant flux, partially overlapping and with a degree of subjectivity in the definition.

I think to an extent the genre suffers from the fact that the people writing about it are usually fans or writers, who have wildly diverging and fluctuating opinions and occasionally a vested interest in playing with the lines more than they ought (such as in the case of authors wishing to avoid certain associations or set themselves apart from a crowd). There's a lack of hard academical definition in fantasy; in essence, it's lacking an equivalent to Todorov's more-or-less definitive definition of "the fantastic" as a genre.

I think ASOIAF is interesting because, looked at in a certain way (but I acknowledge that it's just my own reading) it's a zoom-in of a typical high fantasy story. There is an army of undead coming to kill everyone, there's a Red God getting more and more presence, there's a Dragon Queen with legit dragons and whatever the fuck the Cthulhu Sailors are doing in the west... but the focus is squarely on the petty squables of ordinary rulers over resources and territory. The typical elements of high fantasy* are there, they're just not what the narrative focuses on; in essence, ASOIAF is what would happen if LOTR was entirely about court life in Rohan before Gandalf showed up, cast out Grimtongue and sweeped up the kingdom in his own narrative.

I think I'd tend to define Exalted as "sword and sorcery" if you put my back to the wall and a gun to my head, but I'd amend that by saying that it borrows thematic elements from both high and low fantasy. Then I'd follow with a long and bemoaning rant about how annoying the atomization of fantasy and the construction of labels that cause more difficulty than they solve.

*absent a well-defined "Good vs Evil" narrative, but that one isn't always present, and there at least definitely is Evil.
 
What exactly qualifies or disqualifies an approach/rule/etc. for being classified as a sacred cow? Because 'immunity to criticism' (the definition in the dictionary) seems rather vague. And surely "It has been so before, and I still think it is better this way" is too broad, as it would qualify each and every thing that has been the way it is from a first edition of some book.
Is everything from a first edition book bad, and people simply accept the pitfalls, often going as far to say that the problems are actually benefits and shouldn't be changed? If so, then yes, the first edition book as a whole is a sacred cow.
 
I think it's a complex question. I did some very basic research on fantasy subgenres the other day, and it's honestly kind of baffling how atomized the genre is. L. Sprague de Camp defined "heroic fantasy" and "sword-and-sorcery" as two terms for the same thing, citing Conan the Barbarian as its archetype; but now you get people talking about heroic fantasy and S&S as two different subgenres and Conan as an archetype of low fantasy. And now there are terms like dark fantasy, epic fantasy, and the more easily defined, cross-genres subtypes like science-fantasy and urban fantasy, and all those genres are in constant flux, partially overlapping and with a degree of subjectivity in the definition.
Yes. Speaking as someone who's generally perfectly happy to toss books into a big box labelled "fantasy" the moment they entertain actual magical elements as part of their premise, these viciously-defended divisions are oft-opaque and frustrating.

I think to an extent the genre suffers from the fact that the people writing about it are usually fans or writers, who have wildly diverging and fluctuating opinions and occasionally a vested interest in playing with the lines more than they ought (such as in the case of authors wishing to avoid certain associations or set themselves apart from a crowd).
Hoo, boy, yes. Margaret Atwood wrote a series of books set in the post-apocalyptic aftermath of a dystopian future ravaged by an artificial plague in which artificial humans scavenge for survival while hounded by genetically-engineered animal hybrids. It's not science fiction, mind you – it's "speculative fiction with romance", because science fiction is schlock that belongs in sections of the bookstore frequented by spotty teens.

Frankenstein, a horror novel? Heavens, no! It's a classic, which means it goes in general fiction or "classics". The latest Tom Clancy-esque story about a space-station with an orbital laser and a resurgent Soviet Union and all that good jazz – that's not sci-fi, it's a thriller with futuristic elements. While working at a library, I had a genuine argument with a superior who insisted that the Night Circus, a book about two duelling magicians in a magical circus, wasn't fantasy, because it had won mainstream awards.

The fantasy-scifi section is, for many authors, a horrid desert of sales and critical acclaim that must be avoided at all costs.


I think ASOIAF is interesting because, looked at in a certain way (but I acknowledge that it's just my own reading) it's a zoom-in of a typical high fantasy story. There is an army of undead coming to kill everyone, there's a Red God getting more and more presence, there's a Dragon Queen with legit dragons and whatever the fuck the Cthulhu Sailors are doing in the west... but the focus is squarely on the petty squables of ordinary rulers over resources and territory. The typical elements of high fantasy* are there, they're just not what the narrative focuses on; in essence, ASOIAF is what would happen if LOTR was entirely about court life in Rohan before Gandalf showed up, cast out Grimtongue and sweeped up the kingdom in his own narrative.
I do rather like that reading, yes. Certainly, it goes a long way to explaining the frustration of those, to quote South Park, who want to know when are the dragons going to get here!?
 
I think ASOIAF is interesting because, looked at in a certain way (but I acknowledge that it's just my own reading) it's a zoom-in of a typical high fantasy story. There is an army of undead coming to kill everyone, there's a Red God getting more and more presence, there's a Dragon Queen with legit dragons and whatever the fuck the Cthulhu Sailors are doing in the west... but the focus is squarely on the petty squables of ordinary rulers over resources and territory. The typical elements of high fantasy* are there, they're just not what the narrative focuses on; in essence, ASOIAF is what would happen if LOTR was entirely about court life in Rohan before Gandalf showed up, cast out Grimtongue and sweeped up the kingdom in his own narrative.
I think to a certain degree you're right, but understating the degree to which ASOIAF's tone and themes and general opinion of humans gets in there.

I mean, yes, the trappings are there, for sure; it zooms in on something with the pieces of a standard high fantasy narrative, and that's very much deliberate. But what makes it what it is is that its stance on who people are and what they want and how they interact is very, very distinct from typical high fantasy. ASOIAF quite deliberately strips away the grandeur and majesty from the standard high fantasy fare, and casts people as petty or self-centered or cruel, the world as grim and gritty and unpleasant, et cetera (yes, that's an oversimplification, but it's good enough for what I'm talking about). Calling it a zoom-in on the classic high fantasy story misses that it's saying some very specific things about what the classic high fantasy story should have beneath its broad structure.

I don't think a high fantasy writer writing a zoom-in of the standard high fantasy narrative would turn out a story very similar to ASOIAF except in the broad strokes, because their narrative themes and stance on humans would likely be very different. Also because a standard high fantasy writer may not know how to write a character-centric narrative focusing on human interactions and court intrigue, but I think we can wave that aside for the purposes of comparison.
 
So really, if we're going to go back to cargo cult design, why not make the 300 returning Solars all Mythic Lawful Good Paladins while we're at it? And the Sidereals are all Lawful Evil. And the Lunars are all Chaotic Neutral, and the Dragonbloods also Lawful Evil because they deposed the Mythic Lawful Good Paladins and welp.
But enough about Exalted Third Edition, am I right, folks? :V

(But really, you forgot where Abyssals are Chaotic Evil because murderboner murderboner murderboner)
 
Pitches have meanings, and they say things about settings. They don't restrict the players to only following one such meaning, but they definitely say that this is one of the things thought about when the setting was envisioned; it's one of the valid ways of seeing it, at a minimum.

I will just quote one of the authors about this:

Stephen Lea Sheppard said:
The heroism/villainy thing for Solars is deliberate but often badly handled; it's also a demonstration of fanon getting out of hand.

By default, the straight read of Exalted is that the Solars are the reincarnated heroes of out of the past sent back to a time of woe to make right what's wrong. They're virtuous and powerful and shine with the light of the sun, and they'll confront the suffering of the world.

That's deliberate. You are supposed to be able to take that as the straight read of the game and go wild, in a manner similar to, say, someone taking Werewolf and running it as "You are eco-crusaders; go kill fomori and blow up Pentex buildings."

There's a subtext. The subtext is not something I can concisely describe but it's made up of statements like "What does heroism mean anyway?" and "Wait, virtue doesn't seem to equate with goodness per se here...." and "Are you sure unbound power and no accountability is going to lead to the triumph of a righteousness we want?" The question of whether the Solars will save the world or destroy it is meant to loom in the distance, and as originally conceived, the setting is a tragedy -- great heroism and glory doesn't make an eternal utopia; they just lead to stories worth telling millennia later after the age of heroism and glory has passed and the flame of magic has extinguished itself, leading to the world we know today.

That subtext is necessary. It needs to be present, and it needs to be subtext.

There's two ways to go wrong here. One is to get rid of it entirely, as Kaiju Keichi constantly advocates. The other way -- and this is what 2e did, and what a lot of fans who think they're clever advocate -- is to make it text. This is bad. Bad bad bad. Do not do this. Do not decide that you've uncovered the secret truth of Exalted and proclaim it to the world: "Heroism's promise is a trick! Glory is a lie! The Solars are actually villains!" No. No no no.

That subtext needs to be visible on the horizon; it needs to be present enough to prey on the mind, but the text needs to remain "The Solars are the awesome glorious heroes of yore brought back to bring righteousness and virtue to an age of sorrows." When you take the subtext and make it the truth of the setting, you have stopped serving a well-spiced meal and started serving a plate heaped with spice and no actual food.

I completely agree with this.

Edit; And i just found another one that is relevant too, form the same dude:

This is probably going to sound weird and a few people may even find it off-putting, but I tend to see the Exalted setting as existing on four layers, with different bits of literature inspiration contributing to different layers, one atop the other. This is just how I process things. Note that any given piece of literary fiction probably contributes to more than one layer, and in practice they're not as segregated as this post might suggest.

Layer 1, The Absolute Rock-Bottom Foundaton of Verisimilitude is history, anthropology, politics, and economics. This is so basic that I actually fuckin' forgot it existed and built up a three-layer model and had to slot this in at the end. You can get some of this from stuff like Three Kingdoms and Outlaws of the Marsh, specifically the bits about life in Imperial China (to the same extent the bits about life in ancient Greece in The Iliad and the Odyssey), and also a lot of the basic mercenary slice-of-life material from The Black Company fits here and, I guess, the political machinations in Game of Thrones (if you must), but generally for this your best bet is to read Seeing Like A State,Debt: The First 5,000 Years,1491, and a lot of National Geographic and history and military theory textbooks -- all this informs the basic human experience in Creation that other RPGs tend to gloss over.

Layer 2, Weird Fantasy Fiction here we go here we go here we go. The weird fantasy surrealism of Tales of the Flat Earth, the dying earth post-apocalyptic landscapes and cities built around crashed spaceships of The Book of the New Sun, the actual dying earths of Jack Vance's Dying Earth and Clarke Ashton Smith'sZothique,The Gods of Pegana, any given shot of weird post-apocalyptic fantasy landscapes in Vampire Hunter D or Vampire Hunter D: Bloodlust, to some extent the first chapter of Journey to the West with Monkey exploring Heaven (although for tone that's layer 4), and a lot of the setting of Bridge of Birds (though, again, for tone that's layer 4). The setting of The Compleat Traveller in Black. The Bible also goes here, weirdly enough. Robert Howard's Hyborean Earth. Lovecraft. This is thesetting, but it is not the Exalted, who stride across it like titans. The game is about the Exalted, and the Exalted themselves make the setting be about them through the weight of their influence, but it exists apart from them and these are the things you should check out if you want to understand what it looks like by default, whether due to their legacies or just intrinsically, because magic is a thing in Creation and it looks like this more than it looks like D&D (I would say "or Sanderson," but I haven't read any of his stuff; I've just gotten the impression that his detailed magical systems and politics tend to be, yeah, sanitized, and magic and politics in Creation really really aren't).

Layer 3, The Exalted is to some extent fantasy, action movie, wuxia, and shounen anime protagonists and to some extent the larger than life figures in The Black Company,Tales from the Flat Earth,Three Kingdoms, and Outlaws of the Marsh. Holden once told me that the main thing that drew him to Exalted is that a) it has the best fantasy setting in RPGs, but then b) on top of that it gives you completely broken overpowered h4x shounen anime protagonists to rampage around in it. For personality and drive and motivation the Exalted tend to be like Conan; the heroes of Three Kingdoms,Outlaws of the Marsh,The Iliad, or The Odyssey; Master Li or Number Ten Ox; Altaïr Ibn-La'Ahad or Ezio Auditore; Genghis Khan, or Julie d'Aubigny; or for that matter Batman, but for power level they do tend toward the Lieutenants and Captains from Bleach. This keeps hanging people up! When we say things like "Conan is a great example of an Exalted protagonist" people hear "Solars in 3e won't be any tougher than Conan," which is not what we mean.

Layer 4, Whimsey. Okay, look. Creation is not a sentimental setting. People die of sepsis. Love doesn't conquer all, though rulers do occasionally put nations to the sword over a romantic infatuation. Genocide and ethnic cleansing happen, and atrocities accompany the sacking of cities. Creationites find themselves living in sitcoms about as often as people do in real life, and I think the "real" (whatever that means, in this context) experience of life in a Realm secondary school is not so much Ouran High School Host Club as it is "Life in a 19th century English boarding school" with accompanying power politics (and, er, sodomy). And yet, it is totally necessary that Realm boarding schools allow people to play Dragon-Blooded Ouran High-School Host Club, or Solar Utena, or whatever. Exalted: The Boy Bands is a supported mode of play. So here's where the wry humor of Bridge of Birds or the beginning of Journey to the West come in. This is why we have Beasts of Resplendent Liquid. Holden accused me of disliking these elements of the setting the other day, which is not accurate -- I prefer to see them as a light seasoning atop the rest, rather than really baked-in, but they're a full layer of the setting's tone rather than an afterthought, and every bit as worthy of attention as the other layers.


I think there are a lot of people in the fanbase who assume the layer 4 is as foundational as the layer 1 or 2 material, or who only engage with layers 1 and 3, or who don't see a separation between layer 2 and 3, or who basically swap out layer 1 and 2 for bog-standard fantasy cliches. Those people are consistently confused by things like The Book of the New Sun being a primary source, or us disliking the DoTFA portrayal of First Age Ma-Ha-Suchi.

Tales from the Flat Earth is absolutely the best source for layer 2 inspiration, and one of the best sources for layer 3 inspiration in that it tends to have high-powered history-shaping characters with the drive and vitality of pulp protagonists but who, unlike Conan, don't need a shot of Bleach to reach the appropriate power level.
 
Last edited:
Yes, it had a big plot sticker on it saying "SOLARS ONLY, EVERYONE ELSE FUCK OFF BECAUSE PLOT", with a secondary sticker saying "no, mental defences and other package deals of being an Exalt don't work against this, what do you mean "if it's so easy to deny the Exalted the ability to enter an area, why didn't the Primordials just set up massive areas of 'your Dragonblooded army can't enter here' during the War?".

Anything that artificially segregates off a parcel of the setting as only being allowed for speshul snowflakes by gating it behind a You Must Be This High To Play No Takebacks Or Loopholes rule is not very good writing, especially when it's as poorly justified as Denasdor is ("something something Artifact something fear aura you're not allowed unless you're a Solar go away what do you mean why hasn't the Artifact shut down after two thousand years with no maintenance or refuelling; shut up, you're spoiling the special Solar playground").
/me shrugs.
Sacrificing the reality-simulation part of books for the plot is pretty much what one expects from WW.

To go into more detail on your comparisons, though. Firstly, the word "medieval" is very imprecise, and covers a range from about the 5th to the 15th centuries. Despite people thinking that it's all one homogeneous period, that's literally a thousand years, which is a timespan that does the equivalent of lumping the Battle of Hastings in with the First World War. I'll assume you're talking about pre-Industrial times and average it out at about the 10th century.
I said 'medievalesque' specifically because I didn't mean any specific actual-historical-locale-and-period, but rather the sort of a variant alternate world of low-tech made by applying and accentuating certain phenomena seen in the history of our world and our society. Which usually runs the risk of banalisation of the fantastic, even in a world crafted by vast uncaring intellects of Primordials and working by laws of Essence.

That being said, I have to say that Exalted is very imprecise, with civilisations and cultures described rather homogenously and vaguely. It's supposedly made up out of a myriad of exotic cultures spanning a disc with an area larger than that of Terra, yet when it comes to seeing what makes those myriad spread cultures exotic to one another and to ours, I couldn't find much info, neither in 2e books nor, say, in Scavenger Sons. Which is of course to be expected from a setting which lumps a region as large and varied as Scavenger Lands into either a single book, or worse, a part of a book.
(No, I'm not missing the original point; I just consider the idea of cultures varying across time and space to be an interesting and good one, and the sub-topic to be interesting in its own right. Maybe something useful/informative will come out of this branch, who knows.)

Two bits on the dissection of the list:
  1. By SimpleMindedWisdom I didn't mean something like 'stay low and keep farming', but rather the sort of simple ideas that nonetheless were something the big damn hero didn't think of (e.g. due to a botch if we're systematic; because of overthinking something if we're talking about player choices). Ambitious non-nobles are another matter entirely, and of course they should be part of the setting - they're potentially cool in general, and if successful, they're not inherently banal.
  2. I thought Exaltations pick mortals who are already inclined to become great heroes (in the sense of achieving great feats, not in being particularly goody-two-shoes). That doesn't sound quite random.

Standard fantasy is boring. It presents the veneer of a society, but it ignores how actual societies in the time periods it lazily takes aesthetics from actually worked, and is often wilfully blind to some of the things that existed alongside what it uses - like how cannons were around in Europe from at least the 13th century and handheld firearms were around a couple of centuries later; at the same time as the stereotypical image of the mounted knight. It ignores the economic and political and societal reasons for things that happen, and it strips minor characters and entire groups of agency, assuming that commoners (bar a few Special Snowflake heroes) will be content to stay commoners and the like; boiling them down to a few groups of cliches and trope-block LEGO. One of the promises that made Exalted so inviting and original was that it would sweep all that away and look cynically and hard and accurately at realistic mechanisms of how human cultures worked, and then merely add magic on top. That's far more interesting, to me, than repeating the tired cliches of Generic Western Fantasy - or alternately of repeating them and then adding a layer of dirt and rape on top, as in ASOIAF.
Generic Standarn Western Fantasy is boring to me, but Exalted seems to try hard enough not to be Western . . . in places where it does work at saying anything specific about itself, which too often it doesn't. We may both agree that ability to keep the crossbow a secret over the millenia is hard to believe, but what it does is make the world different from ours, unusual. Firewands are not guns, they're tight-beam burst flamethrowers (sort of) - that adds the sense of exotic and fantastic to the world. A society that is unlike, and works unlike those seen on historical Terra are also a thing that adds to the sense of the exotic, the unusual, the fantastic (particularly if it's show how it works unlike ours - there are even genres dedicated to that). A trope can be played as a cliché, or it can be played as not. Tropes are neither inherently good nor bad. But tropes used does affect the style/genre a work belongs to.

That being said, I'm interested in reading that actual promise you mentioned. As it creates a totally different feel for the setting than the one I was pitched on.

I think really this is the core issue you're having. It's cargo cult design. "Another work which is called fantasy has these things, so my work, which is fantasy, must also have these things." This becomes doubly amusing when we remember that Exalted was supposed to be about rejecting that cargo cult design for fantasy that felt real. Which is kind of why in Exalted, the guys who are given immense power by the Most Righteous God of Righteousness with just their own moral compass to guide them end up fucking up so badly that their advisors bump them all off.
While your wording is somewhat harsh, it is insightful: indeed, multiple things belonging to the same genre are defined as sharing some properties (tropes). The question becomes whether the author of a new work, if such an author wants to write a work within a given genre (and not, say, abandon the genre or start her own genre), can use/follow the genre's tropes intelligently and interestingly, or blindly and stupidly:
Okay- as unambiguously as possible: Badly written fantasy uses poorly employed Archetypes and Cliches as plot devices for their protagonists.
Conversely, well-written whetever-genre uses well-employed tropes of whatever-genre. Or else abandons the tropes and moves on to become a different genre.

As for the second point of your post, I think you're referring to the Back Cover blurb, which is generally trying to hook people who were coming in from World of Darkness, which had a similar kind of theme. I can tell you I prioritize the pages of the book as opposed to the back cover blurb though.

But, addressed more openly to the thread, this does remind me of something I've noticed. Exalted is many thing, but it is rarely what people are sold on when they first experience the setting.

Take a meme, any Exalted meme- you'll likely get some kind of response of 'Wow that's awesome, provocative or otherwise novel in context of my RPG experience!"

People get sold on those memes, and don't get a chance to stay and understand the actual ideas behind those memes.
The underlined part is certainly something that has to be reminded from time to time. I remember reading somewhere that 'Exalted is as much Ghost in the Shell as it is Slayers', or something like that. It has lots of bits and tropes thrown in, cinematic and gritty, idealistic and cynical (in the modern sense), glorious and sorrowful, ancient and modern. That sort of mix . . . can have drawbacks. One being that they can be mutually contradictory (which apparently got worse in 2e, through a mix of being not very line-edited, and just having more stuff and thus more potential places to require contradiction-checking). The other being that it can split the community, with different groups loving different aspects of the setting and disliking others, often to the point that one group advocates removal of Aspect A and emphasising Aspect B, while another group advocates the opposite. E.g. "Yozis don't matter and shouldn't have a leash to pull Infernals" vs. "the whole idea of Infernals being proto-Primordials is a toxic meme" and "Fairies don't matter; fear the Abyssals" vs. "The threat of the Second Balorian Crusade is the most important existential threat for Creation", among many others.

I was actually hoping to start a discussion and see what different sorts of themes different people find interesting/cool in Exalted, back here, but apparently either everybody did it at some point before and don't find repeating themselves to be an interesting use of time, or . . . just don't find the subtopic interesting enough.
 
I thought Exaltations pick mortals who are already inclined to become great heroes (in the sense of achieving great feats, not in being particularly goody-two-shoes). That doesn't sound quite random.
No, but Creation is huge and heroes are everywhere and there are only 700 Exaltations, and most of them are being used. If you get an Exaltation, make no mistake, it is chance. There were a thousand other candidates, and you got lucky. And there are thousands of candidates every day who are just as deserving as you were at that moment, if not more so, who get unlucky because there's no Exaltation available. Exaltations are unfair. That's part of the point.
Firewands are not guns, they're tight-beam burst flamethrowers (sort of) - that adds the sense of exotic and fantastic to the world. A society that is unlike, and works unlike those seen on historical Terra are also a thing that adds to the sense of the exotic, the unusual, the fantastic (particularly if it's show how it works unlike ours - there are even genres dedicated to that).
The thing is, firewands are a superficial detail. They're seasoning on top of the meal; a single tool in a society that has no effect on how that society works as written. Yes, you can take a plate of sausages and mashed potato and cover it in exotic [1] spices and seasonings, and at the end of the day it's still basically bangers and mash. You haven't changed anything anthropologically or societally - and "changes" like the crossbows or triremes are different by fiat, with no explanation of why people have been stupid for generation upon generation.

If you said that there was widespread resistance to crossbow technology, in the same sort of way that Japan rejected firearms after an initial period of loving them, then you might be onto something (though you then have to justify how that resistance keeps itself from being crushed by people who do adopt them). But having it just be "because aesthetic" or "because difference" is the same thing as cardboard fantasy that ignores why things happened; the forces that gave rise to historical actions or events or trends. Some of those forces are societal, some are economic. Some are political or anthropological, geographic or meteorological, pathogenic or memetic. But they're there. Do that properly and you have a society - and because Creation is a world of minor, everyday magics and because you're pulling from multiple cultures to see how people respond to environmental factors, it'll be a weird alien exotic strange cool society - or group of societies. And it'll be all the cooler for the fact that it can stand upright.

Cardboard fantasy ignores all of that. It tries to have the surface skin of a society while ignoring the skeleton and muscles and tendons that hold it up, and the result is that it looks flimsy as fuck to anyone who so much as prods it, because there's nothing inside; it's just a bag of organs and setting elements slopping around with no structure. Putting exotic clothes and pretty jewellery on a bag of organs doesn't make it work. It needs functioning physiology to show off any dress-up.

[1] There was a post somewhere that had an excellent rebuttal of the inclusion of "exotic" elements in this fashion, and I wish I could remember where it was.
 
While your wording is somewhat harsh, it is insightful: indeed, multiple things belonging to the same genre are defined as sharing some properties (tropes). The question becomes whether the author of a new work, if such an author wants to write a work within a given genre (and not, say, abandon the genre or start her own genre), can use/follow the genre's tropes intelligently and interestingly, or blindly and stupidly:
Conversely, well-written whetever-genre uses well-employed tropes of whatever-genre. Or else abandons the tropes and moves on to become a different genre.

Yes, but there's the standing issue that you keep on rejecting vast swathes of fantasy. I don't give a fuck what the shitty cloned fantasy novels of vaguely Western fantasy settings all do. I don't care about their tropes. I don't care that the ruins in TES: Oblivion weren't ever built to be real cities and were designed as ruins full of traps when I'm designing my own ruined cities which were actually places which people were meant to have lived in. I don't care that generic fantasy doesn't seem to care about where the food comes from to feed cities of millions of people in a generically medieval agrarian society. I don't care that the street rat with a heart of gold who's always so cheapy and cheery and corr blimey mister, 'ave you got 'alf a tuppence, is a thing used by a bunch of settings in a frequently anachronistic manner - not when I can actually examine the socioeconomic situation and what the presence of a large feral orphan population says about a society. And I certainly don't respect the fact that most fantasy novels write 1600s absolute monarchies and claim that they're feudal.

Have you read the Book of the New Sun? The Compleat Traveller in Black? Fantasy is a far larger genre than you seem to think it is, and you are not helping your case by claiming that a story in a magical flat land with dragons should be declared to be a different genre to fantasy just because it doesn't do a bunch of stupid things that the bland homogenised mass of generic fantasy does.

(Also, "Tropes are not bad" is a blind Newspeak parroting of TVTropes. No, there most certainly are tropes that are bad - and even more which can be used well, but most typically are just a sign of intellectual laziness and sloppiness that indicate that you're designing by cargo cult mimicry of other books.)
 
//Greeting. This Kanata.

//After watching Green sun, Black Shadow quest (Code Geass/Exalted), I want to learn more about exalted.

//Where should I begin?
 
No, but Creation is huge and heroes are everywhere and there are only 700 Exaltations, and most of them are being used. If you get an Exaltation, make no mistake, it is chance. There were a thousand other candidates, and you got lucky. And there are thousands of candidates every day who are just as deserving as you were at that moment, if not more so, who get unlucky because there's no Exaltation available. Exaltations are unfair. That's part of the point.

Care to expand on this a bit? Because this seems like one of those 'at my table' kinds of things. I mean, certain bits of setting subtext like the fairly cynical realpolitik of the Realm's imperialism, and the virtue =/= goodness conflict and others have plenty of representation in the books, but everything I've read (which, admittedly, is only a few books as I pointed out before) suggests that exaltations really do select for merit, regardless of what that merit might be. Even Dragonblooded exaltations, which seem like they would be the least 'earned' of the exaltations still need some moment to catalyze them, right?

I don't care that the ruins in TES: Oblivion weren't ever built to be real cities and were designed as ruins full of traps when I'm designing my own ruined cities which were actually places which people were meant to have lived in.

I love this as an idea but do you have tips for how to make it actually compelling in play? There was this great third-person brawler game from a while back, Oni, that used the fact that its levels were created by actual architects as a selling point, only for its level architecture to be one of its criticisms when it was released once people discovered that brawling your way through office cubicles was kind of meh. For my own experiences, I had the idea of using the maps from some of my Dwarf Fortress settlements for a ruin for my group to scrounge through, but then it didn't come off as well I was hoping it would because I was just stuck with a bunch of 'yeah, that's another storehouse...'.
 
But enough about Exalted Third Edition, am I right, folks? :V

(But really, you forgot where Abyssals are Chaotic Evil because murderboner murderboner murderboner)
If you're doing it, you've got to do it as sung by the Night Day Caste Abyssal. ^_^

Yes, but there's the standing issue that you keep on rejecting vast swathes of fantasy. I don't give a fuck what the shitty cloned fantasy novels of vaguely Western fantasy settings all do. I don't care about their tropes. I don't care that the ruins in TES: Oblivion weren't ever built to be real cities and were designed as ruins full of traps when I'm designing my own ruined cities which were actually places which people were meant to have lived in. I don't care that generic fantasy doesn't seem to care about where the food comes from to feed cities of millions of people in a generically medieval agrarian society. I don't care that the street rat with a heart of gold who's always so cheapy and cheery and corr blimey mister, 'ave you got 'alf a tuppence, is a thing used by a bunch of settings in a frequently anachronistic manner - not when I can actually examine the socioeconomic situation and what the presence of a large feral orphan population says about a society. And I certainly don't respect the fact that most fantasy novels write 1600s absolute monarchies and claim that they're feudal.

Have you read the Book of the New Sun? The Compleat Traveller in Black? Fantasy is a far larger genre than you seem to think it is, and you are not helping your case by claiming that a story in a magical flat land with dragons should be declared to be a different genre to fantasy just because it doesn't do a bunch of stupid things that the bland homogenised mass of generic fantasy does.
Okay, fair enough, I'm certainly more exposed to mainstream fantasy (out of all fantasy types) than to some other related genres (e.g. New Sun is apparently considered mixed-genre science-fantasy; or the dark fantasy of, say, skimming Dark Sun, or playing a few sessions in a homebrew setting of a certain GM). My experience with mixed science/fantasy subgenres comes largely from the opposite side of the wall: moving from soft sci-fi and veering towards the fantastic, such as Bradbury's Tomorrow's Child (science is so soft it's more-or-less magic), Sheckley's Mindswap (the longer it goes, the more it changes from exploration of the mindswap technology's uses and into the wondrously fantastic), or pretty much anything in Star Wars (because really, it just has a skiffy æsthetic, but runs as pure fantasy in terms of both tropes and the way the technologies work).

That being said, the street goes both ways: you accuse me of rejecting vast swathes of a group of genres/overgenre (which I indeed overlooked, because of the differences in mixed-genre exposure listed above), while also throwing F***'s at 'standard' fantasy novels which you describe as being the majority ('most'). I agree that many books can be criticised for this or that, and that tastes differ but can we at least be civil about it?

(Also, "Tropes are not bad" is a blind Newspeak parroting of TVTropes. No, there most certainly are tropes that are bad - and even more which can be used well, but most typically are just a sign of intellectual laziness and sloppiness that indicate that you're designing by cargo cult mimicry of other books.)
I don't agree on some things with tropers, but really, which tropes are inherently bad (as opposed to misapplied)? After all, a narrative tool becomes a narrative tool because it is fit for some sort of purpose.

(Definitely agree with you that sloppiness/laziness of tool application can produce bad works.)

I really think this needs to be emphasized, @vicky_molokh. What you are saying are the themes of Exalted are the surface images of Exalted, literally the superficial trappings. That's why its easy to confuse early 1e, late 1e/early 2e and late 2e because they all had the same superficial qualities.

But the people in this thread prefer to dig into the setting deeper, to refer to the intentions of the authors as revealed in discussions and interviews, to understand what Exalted was meant to be and what it is supposed to be under the surface. You are talking all about the image of Exalted while we are mostly talking about the foundations of Exalted. The actual themes and ideas that were used to craft that image. You are talking about the picture, we are talking about the canvas and the paint and the inspiration.
Hmm. I do understand that there are some deeper things to the setting than the image it presents. (Your post also happened to increase my confusion regarding whether or not I should treat 1e and 2e as the same setting or not, because it makes it sound like early 1E, late 1E/early 2E and late 2e and 2½e are not quite the same, while IIRC Jon Chung said they're the same but with weird veers due to an apathetic/unqualified line editor.) But regarding the deep image, things that are increasing confusion:
  1. It seems like occasionally the actual hidden parts of the setting and the fan addition get merged. Do they? Do they not?
  2. To add to the above, some of the sources for the 'deep things' seem to be not even hosted on official sites of WW/OPP. That's a weird policy. Sure, I know what Designer's Notes and FAQs are (duh), but instead of a Designer's Notes section and a FAQ, there seems to be this cloud of rumours and apocrypha and guesswork and hearsay.
  3. Regarding the subtext, I'm getting the impression that there's a very strong trend towards emphasising the subtext to the point that it consumes the explicitly-written stuff, as exemplified in the quotes provided by Broken25 (quote doesn't include nested quotes; click to read the full post). Is this the case of 'fan stuff getting out of control' that is mentioned?
I will just quote one of the authors about this:

I mostly agree with this.

Edit; And i just found another one that is relevant too, form the same dude:
Thanks for the info, Broken25.

I love this as an idea but do you have tips for how to make it actually compelling in play? There was this great third-person brawler game from a while back, Oni, that used the fact that its levels were created by actual architects as a selling point, only for its level architecture to be one of its criticisms when it was released once people discovered that brawling your way through office cubicles was kind of meh. For my own experiences, I had the idea of using the maps from some of my Dwarf Fortress settlements for a ruin for my group to scrounge through, but then it didn't come off as well I was hoping it would because I was just stuck with a bunch of 'yeah, that's another storehouse...'.
Sounds like Oni the exact opposite of what WW tends to strive to make.
 
Last edited:
Care to expand on this a bit? Because this seems like one of those 'at my table' kinds of things. I mean, certain bits of setting subtext like the fairly cynical realpolitik of the Realm's imperialism, and the virtue =/= goodness conflict and others have plenty of representation in the books, but everything I've read (which, admittedly, is only a few books as I pointed out before) suggests that exaltations really do select for merit, regardless of what that merit might be. Even Dragonblooded exaltations, which seem like they would be the least 'earned' of the exaltations still need some moment to catalyze them, right?
So there are 700 Celestial Exaltations. Ever.

There are millions of mortals in Creation. Probably 1 in 100 (this is a number pulled out of my ass, and may or may not reflect your own games) is going to be a Heroic Mortal. Due to the fact that Creation is in a constant state of low to mid-level conflict due to how big it is, the conditions are correct that one person could Exalt per day if there were enough free Exaltations, and that is probably low-balling it.

There are only 700 Celestial Exaltations to split between all these worthy people.

That means that for every person who Exalted, there are probably at least 50 other people in Creation at that same moment who could have used that Exaltation. The only reason the person who got the Exaltation gets it is because the Exaltation was right there when you satisfied the requirements.

It is an incredible moment of heroism, but it is also an incredibly lucky moment as well.
 
Care to expand on this a bit? Because this seems like one of those 'at my table' kinds of things. I mean, certain bits of setting subtext like the fairly cynical realpolitik of the Realm's imperialism, and the virtue =/= goodness conflict and others have plenty of representation in the books, but everything I've read (which, admittedly, is only a few books as I pointed out before) suggests that exaltations really do select for merit, regardless of what that merit might be. Even Dragonblooded exaltations, which seem like they would be the least 'earned' of the exaltations still need some moment to catalyze them, right?
Can someone earn thr right to near limitless power? And what makes one hero more worthy of it than another? EarthScorpion is not saying that you don't need to be a hero to get and Exaltation. He is saying that being a hero and having that moment of great need in no way makes up for the miracle bestowed upon you. And that even if you get an exaltation, there are many other heroes who were just as worthy who didn't.
 
Care to expand on this a bit? Because this seems like one of those 'at my table' kinds of things. I mean, certain bits of setting subtext like the fairly cynical realpolitik of the Realm's imperialism, and the virtue =/= goodness conflict and others have plenty of representation in the books, but everything I've read (which, admittedly, is only a few books as I pointed out before) suggests that exaltations really do select for merit, regardless of what that merit might be. Even Dragonblooded exaltations, which seem like they would be the least 'earned' of the exaltations still need some moment to catalyze them, right?

Yeah, of course they select for merit. But the point is that there are far more meritory people than Exaltations. There is a celestial Exaltation for million humans in creation (More or less) is obvious that for each one that Exalts, ten or twenty or a hundred equally meritory people are left out.

And actually, i think that the doylist reason that there are a limited number, known number ofExaltations (As opposed of, the UCS Exalting people when he feels like it) is to emphatise the unfairness of it.
 
Last edited:
So there are 700 Celestial Exaltations. Ever.

There are millions of mortals in Creation. Probably 1 in 100 (this is a number pulled out of my ass, and may or may not reflect your own games) is going to be a Heroic Mortal. Due to the fact that Creation is in a constant state of low to mid-level conflict due to how big it is, the conditions are correct that one person could Exalt per day if there were enough free Exaltations, and that is probably low-balling it.

There are only 700 Celestial Exaltations to split between all these worthy people.

That means that for every person who Exalted, there are probably at least 50 other people in Creation at that same moment who could have used that Exaltation. The only reason the person who got the Exaltation gets it is because the Exaltation was right there when you satisfied the requirements.

It is an incredible moment of heroism, but it is also an incredibly lucky moment as well.

Can someone earn thr right to near limitless power? And what makes one hero more worthy of it than another? EarthScorpion is not saying that you don't need to be a hero to get and Exaltation. He is saying that being a hero and having that moment of great need in no way makes up for the miracle bestowed upon you. And that even if you get an exaltation, there are many other heroes who were just as worthy who didn't.

I kind of feel like 'can anyone really be worthy of this much power?' is rather a different statement than 'lol this could have happened to a thousand other schmucks'.
 
Last edited:
I shall thow my opinion into the fantasy discussion. I always felt, that true divide in the fantasy is between Epic fantasy (ala Tolkien) and Conan style sword and sorcery and that the true difference is narrative. Epic is story driven, it is about archetypes great prophecies Good and Evil, great philosophical conflict and so on. It is not about characters so much. Sword and sorcery is character driven and is much more about them, about their foibles and failures. it is not so much about the story. Characters and atmosphere drive it. It also exist today in the form of urban fantasy. I never really considered magic level as important, mainly because Tolkien is by that standard very low fantasy.
 
Back
Top