This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Companions and advisors (Inquisition) article.
  • General discussions not pertaining to the improvement of the article should be held in Discussions instead.
  • Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
  • Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes! (~~~~)
  • Do not edit another editor's comment.

Confirmed companions Edit

Just a note that this page should be limited to confirmed companions, announced by BioWare. Which, as of right now, consists solely of Varric, Cassandra, and Vivienne. Per Mike Laidlaw's twitter, a character from Asunder has been confirmed to appear in the game, but not yet confirmed as a companion. The unknown qunari in the concept art hasn't even been confirmed as an actual character in the game (which I'm pretty sure he will be at some point, but he hasn't yet). Kelcat (talk) 18:19, January 6, 2014 (UTC)

Ugly romance optionsEdit

Is it just me or is it that, if not all, most of the possible romance options are very ugly? Cassandra looks like a man (since she's a soldier), Vivienne is really ugly, Varric is a dwarf and Solas is bald...--Darth Hammu (talk) 20:55, May 12, 2014 (UTC)

please do not use talk pages to discuss content, use the forums instead. Additionally, only Cassandra and Cullen are confirmed to be romancable.Henio0 (talk) 22:42, May 12, 2014 (UTC)

Iron Bull = Tal Vashoth? Edit

Since Iron Bull is actively a member of the Ben-Hassrath, he's not actually a Tal-Vashoth, right?

Leliana Possibly The 9th Companion? Edit

An article from Kotaku writes that Darrah said "The nine followers will be a mix of both characters that are new to Inquisition and ones you are familiar with from the previous games."

Also, one part of this trailer shows Leliana fighting with the Inquisitor, though I'm not sure if it's just that scene or is a companion, but if you put this and the earlier statement together, it makes sense. Phanvrad (talk) 19:45, June 12, 2014 (UTC)

no she was confirmed as the advisor for the inquisition. if you look at the group photo the man with the emo haircut is the final companion Thehumaneldar (talk) 22:05, June 12, 2014 (UTC)

Companion Organization Edit

Their is i bit of a debate of how the companions should be shown. one say in alphabetical order the other says by class. to solve the debacle this should be placed to a vote by the wiki. Thehumaneldar (talk) 03:26, June 14, 2014 (UTC)

Not really sure why there's a debate about this, Companions for every game thus far have been sorted alphabetically. It should be standardized across the wiki. --Kelcat (talk) 03:32, June 14, 2014 (UTC)
Alphabetical order seems the most logical to me. – mostlyautumntalkcontribs • 08:23, June 14, 2014 (UTC)
I was the one editing it by class because I thought it looked better, but have now realised it's alphabetical across the wiki. I apologise for my previous edits on the page, let's leave it as it is from now on. Xsari (talk) 13:00, June 14, 2014 (UTC)

Since we're doing it alphabetically, I suggest doing it LAST NAME, FIRST NAME, i.e. Cassandra under P, Varric under T, and then go back to Origins and DA2 anc change like Zevran to A. Henio0 (talk) 18:51, June 23, 2014 (UTC)

Forenames are applicable to all companions while surnames are applicable to only a few. I think it's simplest to stick with the characteristic which applies to them all. Chantry symbol King Cousland | Talk   21:27, June 23, 2014 (UTC)

Iron Bull confirmed to be romanceable? Edit I'm not sure if that's enough to be considered as a "confirmation", but I just thought I'd mention it. :> -- (talk) 23:25, June 23, 2014 (UTC)

not really as it is more of a tease then a real confirmationThehumaneldar (talk) 02:59, June 24, 2014 (UTC)

Sexuality Edit

why on earth is there any relevance to Dorian and Sera being the first solely gay and lesbian companions in the Dragon Age series, is it relevant that Zevran and Leliana were the first Bisexual companions? no, not really at all. So adding such 'trivia' is unnecessary.—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk)

Did you really just copied and pasted the same thing on theee different talk pages? This one doesn't even have anything remotely connected to sexuality.Henio0 (talk) 02:17, June 28, 2014 (UTC)

Untitled Edit

All the romance options are ugly. So no pre order for me. I'll wait for a price drop or buy it used.

Dragon Age Inquisition companions are all too ugly to romance. What a big dissapointment.—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk)

Talk pages are intended to discuss the article. Please use the forums if you wish to express opinions. Friendship smallLoleil Talk 16:28, July 1, 2014 (UTC)

Untitled 2 Edit

Shouldn't the heart next to Dorian be removed? He is confirmed gay companion, not a gay romance, just like Iron Bull is confirmed bi (will sleep with anything that moves) but not a bi romance. Did I miss the confirmation that he is a romance some where? (talk) 01:46, July 2, 2014 (UTC)Kakyuu

Looks like someone on facebook asked specifically, and someone official replied that he is indeed going to be a romance [1] --Kelcat (talk) 01:56, July 2, 2014 (UTC)

Merge proposal Edit

Nope I don't agree with merging the companions and advisors articles. Companions are people who can join your party, whereas advisors cant. I think the two should be left separate rather than be lumped together. --Kelcat (talk) 21:40, July 9, 2014 (UTC)

Yes Changing my vote after reading what Alexsau1991 said, makes sense to merge them. Xsari (talk) 00:10, July 11, 2014 (GMT)

Yes I don't see what's so different about advisors to warrant a separate page. The two articles are two very similar short lists. – mostlyautumntalkcontribs • 22:05, July 9, 2014 (UTC)

Nope No point in merging. Consider that advisers are the Dragon Age equivalent of Mass Effect characters like Joker, Cortez, and Traynor. They're important characters with a similar level of interactivity to squad members, some even having romance options. At the end of the day, they don't join the fight like squad members do, and that's why they aren't considered as such. Having them get their own article but share a template is a fine solution. Mr. Mittens (talk) 23:33, July 9, 2014 (UTC)

Yes The Mass Effect example actually works in favor of merging. Allies like Joker are on the same page as squad members, just under a different subheading. --Summerfield (talk) 00:30, July 10, 2014 (UTC)

Yes If we kept them on the same page but under different subheadings it'd be easier to see them all at once and keep track of them. Fizziepanda (talk) 00:59, July 10, 2014 (UTC)

Yes Just make separate headings like the mass effect wiki then we should be fine--Thehumaneldar (talk) 01:42, July 10, 2014 (UTC)

Nope I think having them on the same page will only add to the confusions that already exists between companions and advisors. Also, I think the comparison between how this is set up and how the mass effect wiki is set up is moot because it is completely different, with simply a page of characters which also includes adversaries. --Ookahi (talk) 13:12, July 10, 2014 (UTC)

Yes As per Mostlyautumn. Companions and advisors are being treated differently to other NPCs by BioWare, they have already stated that interactions and romancing of them will be identical to that of companions. Alexsau1991 (talk page) 14:24, July 10, 2014 (UTC)

I'd also like to point out, for those who argue that Advisors should be treated differently to Companions, that this article (as a virtual carbon-copy of the companions article) is treating them identically to companions; it really serves no purpose. If an article for Advisors is maintained, then it should be informational - not laid out identically to the companions article. Alexsau1991 (talk page) 14:33, July 10, 2014 (UTC)
I'm not at all opposed to making the Advisors article different from this one. I agree that it should be laid out differently in fact. Because they're not the same as companions. One type of character can join your party, one cannot. It's also been revealed that the approval mechanics for advisors will be different in some way from approval gained by companions. So that means there may have to be two different approval sections. Then there's party banter/dialogue points. Those may not all be the same for both companions and advisors. If you look at Companions (Origins) and Companions (Dragon Age II), there are several sections on there that may be repeated on this article but may not apply to both companions and advisors. I just think it'd be messy and hard to keep track of. Right now they're both short articles, but that doesn't mean they'll stay that way. Regardless of whether they're kept separate or merged, it should definitely be clearly emphasized that advisors can't join your party but companions can. --Kelcat (talk) 23:51, July 10, 2014 (UTC)

Yes I also believe that companions and advisors should be on the same page, especially since they are on the same footer now anyway. Charlie1121 (talk) 22:48, July 10, 2014 (UTC)

Nope We don't know if advisors are playable or if they'll remain as three. It's probably best we wait and see.--Mike Gilbert 23:06, July 10, 2014 (UTC)

NopeCompanions should remain companions. So far we don't even know what do advisors do. Most likely their role is like Legion's and Wrex's in ME3, only that they're available for longer. I like the suggestion on Advisors page, to have each group seperately, and then one page where you have all of them together. Henio0 (talk) 07:01, July 11, 2014 (UTC)

"The advisors (Leliana, Josephine, and Cullen) have the same amount of content as party members—they have just as many interactions and are involved in the main story a great deal. About the only difference is that they don’t have party banter." - David Gaider. (Source)

In light of this, I reaffirm that the pages be merged. Content, and interaction is said to be 'the same' for advisors and companions. The only difference between the two being, advisors don't join party (though as we've seen they do join the Inquisitor on some quests) and they don't have party banter. We can clearly emphasise that they are different by merging the articles, and having two subheadings - one for Companions and one for Advisors. That way we have all the characters with these identical interactions on the same page. Alexsau1991 (talk page) 16:39, July 17, 2014 (UTC)

Should someone just go ahead and merge them? It's 7 in favour and 5 against and no ones made an opinion for a while... Xsari (talk) 22:30, July 19, 2014 (GMT)

I think so. It's been over eight days since a vote was last cast, or indeed an opinion was expressed, and it's not as if the advisors page has been updated to include any new information that might merit it's keep. Plus as I previously said, Gaider has recently expressed that they have the same amount content, interaction etc, as companions thus allot of the early arguments have been rendered moot. Alexsau1991 (talk page) 23:00, July 19, 2014 (UTC)
Maybe you should do it then? Might be better if a moderator changes it rather then me. Xsari (talk) 00:10, July 20, 2014 (GMT)
Oh, I'm not a moderator haha. But sure, no probs. :) Alexsau1991 (talk page) 23:12, July 19, 2014 (UTC)
Oh really? I thought you were like King Cousland lol, my mistake sorry :) Xsari (talk) 00:15, July 20, 2014 (GMT)
Not necessarily moot, as Gaider's comments kind of contradict what was said in the Raptr Q & A and there are still dissimilarities. But proposals usually run 10 days which it has, and while it's not really an overwhelming majority I think it's enough to say it's successful. A split can always be proposed in the future if we get more info that warrants it. --Kelcat (talk) 23:16, July 19, 2014 (UTC)
Sure, if in the future there are reasons enough to again split the article - I would have no problem. For now, the evidence we have treats them very similar to companions - in terms of content and interaction, while there is little evidence that says what they do differently. The only difference we currently know is that they can't join your party - other than that, there is little difference. Right now, it seems to make sense keeping the 12 major characters together in one place, (as Mass Effect wiki does, not that i support using them as a basis for what we do here). If in the future, as I say, there is allot of differences etc to warrant a split, I can't say that I'd vote against. Alexsau1991 (talk page) 23:24, July 19, 2014 (UTC)

Mentors? Edit

Where did that come from?--Mike Gilbert 22:18, August 25, 2014 (UTC)

Not sure, but it shouldn't be on there. Margerard is awesome and beat me to undoing the edit :D. The ones listed are not mentors they're companions, and romance should be noted on the Romance (Inquisition) article. --Kelcat Talk 22:21, August 25, 2014 (UTC)

Vivienne image change Edit

Ran out of room in the summary. I've changed Vivienne's image as I don't think either of the official images show her face very well. She looks quite strange in the first and the new one is in shadow. If no one agrees it's fine to change back but I just think this represents her better for now. Xsari (talk) 16:50, September 1, 2014 (GMT)

Yes I agree. There's no reason we have to use the same profile images as BioWare, if there's a better alternative (as will be the case come Nov) then we should use it. Alexsau1991 (talk page) 19:59, September 1, 2014 (UTC)

Yes Agreed, and I hope it will be okay to update Dorian's picture after the game is out. He looks sickly with all that green lighting! --Death by Cheese (talk) 20:28, September 1, 2014 (UTC)

Yeah the original is very green looking. I've edited it now to make it less so. Also done the same with Leliana's yellow looking skin. For some reason the editing doesn't work with Cullen's though, but am on IPad so editing is limited... Xsari (talk) 1:42, September 2, 2014 (GMT)
That looks a lot better! One of the first things I did after Dorian was announced was take his profile image to Photoshop and adjust hue. I thought about posting it, but I wasn't sure it would be allowed. I've been dying for Bioware to release better images. --Death by Cheese (talk) 06:01, September 2, 2014 (UTC)
I think as long as you keep it pretty much the same it's ok. Nothing drastic like changing hair colour obviously. I edited the new Varric one to make it less blue some time ago, no one said I shouldn't have. Xsari (talk) 10:15, September 2, 2014 (GMT)

Is the news about Blackwall accurate? Edit

I don't mean to sound mad, but I was looking forward to Vivienne and this so called news about Blackwall has me pegged up a notch. It's just a little unequal. How do we know that someone didn't use Laidlaw's name?--Mike Gilbert 21:02, September 3, 2014 (UTC)

I don't think just anyone on the forums can be labeled with the Bioware tag unless they are an employee. Sadly I think it's true. Very disappointing personally, bet they will go with a doomed Thane-like romance :( Xsari (talk) 22:12, September 3, 2014 (GMT)

We've got two months, so let's hope it turns out to be a disgruntled employee playing a prank.--Mike Gilbert 21:16, September 3, 2014 (UTC)

Mike confirmed the post in his twitter so yeah this is the real deal. --Alexei007 (talk) 21:22, September 3, 2014 (UTC)

(Sighs in despair) We'll see.--Mike Gilbert 21:52, September 3, 2014 (UTC)

Huh. I wasn't expecting this. I personally wouldn't want to romance a Grey Warden so close to their Calling, but eh, maybe others are into tragic love story stuff. --Death by Cheese (talk) 22:30, September 3, 2014 (UTC)

Inner Circle Edit

With what information I've gathered from those YouTube videos, the companions are also known as the Inquisitor's inner circle which sounds appropriate. Does anyone think we should replace the companion title here and list the Inquisition as such?--Observer Supreme 13:26, November 15, 2014 (UTC)

Temporary Companion? Edit

Should Valta and Renn be classified as temporary companions? I know they don't show up in the party menu but they do fight along the party for the entirety of the DLC and can be buffed, healed, etc~. Classifying them as temporary companions seems the easiest way to represent the size of their role. -Seekers of Truth heraldryHD3 (Talk) 01:28, September 22, 2015 (UTC)

Redundant Icons Edit

Should companions with specializations not have the generic class icon? E.g., Solas is a Rift Mage and Cole is an Assassin, but there cannot be a Rift Mage that is not a Mage, nor an Assassin who is not a Rogue, so the generic class markers (Mage and Rogue) are redundant for them. I think the generic ones should only be used when we don't know the specialization, e.g, Josephine or Valta. DaBarkspawn (talk) 23:46, August 6, 2016 (UTC)

I think it would be better to keep the generic class icons for companions:
1. Some people might not know which specializations belong to which class (the mage ones are pretty obvious but it's less clear between rogue/warrior)
2. It's consistent with the companion pages for DAO and DA2
3. It's consistent with the other companions who don't have speciliazations (Leliana, Valta etc.)
4. It barely takes up any space and doesn't make the page any harder to read --Evamitchelle (talk) 11:02, August 7, 2016 (UTC)

I'd prefer we keep all the icons for the sake of completeness. Friendship smallLoleil Talk 00:35, August 8, 2016 (UTC)
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.