This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 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.

Inquisition Heraldry[edit source]

Just wonder if we have confirmation that the heraldry posted here is for the Inquisition and not the Seekers of Truth. Is there a source on that?--R2sMuse (talk) 21:53, September 22, 2012 (UTC)

It's labeled "Heraldry: Inquisition" and the filename is "hld_inquisition". Also the symbol is basically a composition of Seekers and Templar Order symbols which makes sense. It is cut content though, I don't think it is found anywhere in the game, only in the game files. – mostlyautumntalkcontribs • 21:58, September 22, 2012 (UTC)
And there are separate heraldries for seekers and templars, I'll upload them now. – mostlyautumntalkcontribs • 22:02, September 22, 2012 (UTC)
Cool. Thanks for the clarification! I was just starting to gather that from seeing the image pop here and there over at BSN. So... how confirmed would we consider that...? I suppose, if it's flat out called "Heraldry: Inquisition" and at that point there is only the historical Inquisition, no second coming, then that's pretty straight forward, I suppose... What do you think about adding that "Heraldry: Inquisition" line to the description of the image? Very, very cool! --R2sMuse (talk) 22:10, September 22, 2012 (UTC)

"Renewed" Inquisition[edit source]

So, I think despite Aaron Flynn making comments like DAI will "bring back an inquisition" we still don't know what the connection is between the old and the new. He does specifically say "an" inquisition, not "the" inquisition in the cited IGN article. Semantics, perhaps, but it's still not clear. I'd prefer to move any such mentions based on the E3 reveal into trivia instead of the main article for now.

Similarly, once it becomes more clear what the new Inquisition is, it will need to be decided whether it gets its own page or not. For now, I think this one should be about the historical Inquisition. If it turns out that the two are really the same organization, we can talk about both here, but I think that remains to be seen. --R2sMuse (talk) 16:13, June 25, 2013‎ (UTC)

What other inquisition is there to "bring back"? Also if you look here, you can see the Inquisition heraldry on the armor. It is of course still up for debate whether it was the Inquisition heraldry in the first place, since all we have is a texture in DA2 game files. – mostlyautumntalkcontribs • 18:29, June 25, 2013 (UTC)
It could be using inquisition as a general description of the investigation process, thought, instead of as a proper noun. Basically, we still have no idea. If he'd said "bring back the Inquisition," I think it would be different and we'd know more. Personally, I agree with you that there's a connection... but for the purposes of the wiki, I think we should stick to what we actually know. Here's hoping they actually tell us more soon! --R2sMuse (talk) 19:50, June 25, 2013 (UTC)

Revisiting this topic following Game Informer information, via Mark Darrah in video, that the new Inquisition is the ancient organization "reformed." To separate out the two, I took a stab at two sections. "History" becomes "First Inquisition," following the formalism used by World of Thedas, p. 106, and the new one for now is "Modern Inquisition." Limited the info to what was directly said by the devs, although didn't add anything about how the player can control the destiny and "reputation" of the organization. But, not sure (a) how spoilery any of that is yet, and (b) are there already DA:I spoiler tags? Thoughts? --R2sMuse (talk) 13:15, August 15, 2013 (UTC)

Split[edit source]

The ancient and the modern Inquisition are 2 separate organisations, the former submitted to the Chantry when the latter is a newly formed self-important organisation adopting only it's name, but has no connection with the Chantry, it isn't allied or fused with any existing group. (talk) 11:20, September 21, 2013 (UTC)

I don't believe that anyone has established this officially yet. Dev comments have included words like "renewed" and "reformed" in describing the new organization and that you're "the first Inquisitor in a thousand years." Moreover, the World of Thedas talks about the original Inquisition as "the first Inquisition" suggesting it was the first of multiple. All of this sounds like there may be a connection. Until we know, a split may be premature. --R2sMuse (talk) 12:18, September 21, 2013 (UTC)

The fact that the modern Inquisition has no connection to the Chantry is a speculation. It uses a name and an emblem of the old Inquisition, and the old Inquisition was originally independent from the Chantry. So I think we should wait for more information, there is no hurry. – mostlyautumntalkcontribs • 13:22, September 21, 2013 (UTC)

It is no speculation, look at blog (talk) 14:10, September 21, 2013 (UTC)
On the contrary, you can watch the entire panel here, and nowhere is it said definitively that the new Inquisition has nothing to do with the old one. Bioware has been clear that you will not work for the Chantry. However, the original Inquisition didn't work for them either, so that doesn't really tell us anything. In fact, the original Inquisition was an independent organization, much like they've described the new Inquisition so far. FWIW, you may be interested to watch some of the Game Informer coverage which expands on this fact about not being beholden to the Chantry. --R2sMuse (talk) 15:09, September 21, 2013 (UTC)

Yes.png I'm all in favour of the split. It seems very clear that the two Inquisitions had very different purposes, and so this page could become quite muddled when expanding it. Not to mention that the modern Inquisition's more than likely going to need a page of its own anyway to properly list everything we know (and will learn) about it. This page should be renamed First Inquisition and a new page called Second Inquisition should be created. Chantry symbol.svg King Cousland | Talk   17:13, April 22, 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't agree that it's "very clear" since we haven't been told why this organization is called Inquisition yet. For all we know there's a very close relationship between the two. But, that being said, I agree that the modern version probably needs a page of its own since the content will be extensive.--R2sMuse (talk) 18:04, April 22, 2014 (UTC)
Yes.png I support the split.FirstDrellSpectre (talk) 18:06, April 22, 2014 (UTC)
Terms such as the first Inquisition and the second Inquisition are conjectures, however. Best I would votr for would be to leave this page about the modern Inquisition, and move the stuff about the old one. Ain't nobody gonna get on the wiki and search for "second Inquisition".Henio0 (talk) 04:24, April 23, 2014 (UTC)
Modern Inquisition seems to be just as conjectural. If we moved the information about the old Inquisition, we'd still have to use a conjectural title, so we're straying into that territory either way. My vote still goes for splitting the page into First and Second Inquisition and using conjecture tags until we get some verified names from an official source. As for the issue about users not searching for "Second Inquisition", there's no reason we couldn't have the two (along with the game itself) on a disambiguation page. Doing so would make it much easier for users than having everything crammed on one article. Chantry symbol.svg King Cousland | Talk   20:11, April 23, 2014 (UTC)
What about names "Inquisition (Dragon Age)" and "Inquisition (Ancient Age)"? Modern and Ancient wouldn't be bad names either.FirstDrellSpectre (talk) 20:17, April 23, 2014 (UTC)
I think using (Dragon Age) could be a little misleading as it would imply there is another Inquisition outside the main series. Modern and Ancient are certainly possibilities, though BioWare representatives have themselves referenced the old group as the "first Inquisition". Chantry symbol.svg King Cousland | Talk   13:05, April 24, 2014 (UTC)
If not (Dragon Age), then what about (Modern Age)? We are independent from Bioware, we can call the original inquisition "Ancient Inquisition" as we called some conflicts they didn't bother to name. They made some informations flawed or misplaced. For example Shale is 12 centuries old, not 5 centuries, Possessed Ogre Commander isn't a possessed creature but a shade. We don't have to name things because Bioware names them, especially when wrong. Rebellion is a rise of an army, when Anders was alone in Kirkwall, he had no army, that wasn't Kirkwall Rebellion, it was RotA in Kirkwall.FirstDrellSpectre (talk) 13:14, April 24, 2014 (UTC)

Nope.pngA split is not needed. It is unlikely that we will have any more information than we have currently about the first Inquisition and it gives context to the founding of the second, which is undoubtably a call back to the first, hence the name. The new Inquisition information will likely take up the vast majority of the article in the future, but I don't think the first has enough to merit two separate articles. Ravenfirelight (talk) 13:40, April 24, 2014 (UTC)

Yes.png I support the split, and I second Henio's suggestion. Leave this article about the modern Inquisition, and create a new article about the old Inquisition. Given that the modern Inquisition is to be the centrepiece of the next game this is to be a far more significant article, and will attract far more hits and edits. The historical one however won't on both counts. Alexsau1991 25px-Goddammit.svg.png (talk page) 13:58, April 24, 2014 (UTC)

That's exactly why I think there should not be a split. Both go by the title Inquisition and the second is evidently a revival of the first. The devs have been throwing around words like "renewal". A case can be made that it actually is the reconstitution of the old order considering it appears to count Seekers(Cassandra) and Templars(Cullen) amongst its founding members. Why complicate matters with contrived article titles differentiating the two? Ravenfirelight (talk) 16:46, April 24, 2014 (UTC)
I'd argue it's actually an overcomplication having them on the same article. As you point out, devs have indeed "thrown around" words like "renewal", so I don't think we should use this as a basis as treating both the first and second Inquisitions as the same entity. For one, they have very different purposes, with the former aiming to combat mages and the latter trying to stop a demonic invasion and end the state of chaos Thedas is in. Secondly, the first Inqusition was absorbed into the Chantry and was thus effectively destroyed. To say that both the old and new Inquisition are the same entity would also imply that such an organisation has existed independently between the decline and rise old the old and new, respectively. This is simply not the case. Chantry symbol.svg King Cousland | Talk   17:34, April 24, 2014 (UTC)
Are they so different though? The purpose of the first Inquisition was to combat the the chaotic state of Thedas, not just by stopping mages from running amok but they also acted essentially as vigilantes passing judgement on the mundane as well as the magical. They didn't have a tear in the sky to contend with, but the mission statement is otherwise quite similar. A continuation need not be present for the second to be a revival of the first. Hence I think "Reformed" "Refounded" or "Revived" would be better descriptors than "New" or "Modern". This Ausgamer interview might interest you: Here. Honestly though, a large part of my objection to the split is because I don't think the first Inquisition has enough content to merit a separate article. Its primary purpose seems to be to provide precedent for the second. Ravenfirelight (talk) 17:49, April 24, 2014 (UTC)

Nope.png I'm against the Split. I think the Inquisition should have the information about the first Inquisition if only to provide background information on the organization's history and context of its influence. It's using the same crest, same name, and the information of the first inquisition in my opinion does not warrant two separate articles. It's like trying to split the Circle of Magi page for a pre and post nevaran accord status. I just don't think it's worth it.(Sports72Xtrm (talk) 16:57, April 24, 2014 (UTC))

I suggest to add proper ticks to all opinions.FirstDrellSpectre (talk) 17:00, April 24, 2014 (UTC)

Nope.png This is a tough one to call admittedly. The "Modern" Inquisition could consider themselves a continuation of the original organization. If that were the case I'd argue it ought to be reflected in the article. There's also the matter of the recent interview where they state that the modern Inquisition is created via the same legal loophole and mechanism in chantry lore as the original one. So in a strictly technical legal term, it could be considered the same organization. I would argue that we leave it as it stands temporarily until the game is released at least and all the facts are available. -HD3 Sig.png 14:15, April 25, 2014 (UTC)

Modern can also mean reformed.FirstDrellSpectre (talk) 08:47, April 27, 2014 (UTC)

If we do split the article, as KingCousland suggested the old Inquisition should be named as the 'first Inquisition', since this is no longer conjecture as BioWare has used this term of reference on the timeline on their website. If we then leave the modern Inquisition as just 'Inquisition', that will bring us in line with BioWare's own style of reference. Alexsau1991 (talk page) 19:57, April 25, 2014 (UTC)

Then "the Inquisition" and "the first Inquisition" are decided titles.FirstDrellSpectre (talk) 20:10, April 25, 2014 (UTC)
Agree with these titles given how BW itself refers to them. --R2sMuse (talk) 01:24, May 20, 2014 (UTC)

Nope.png Chiming in again (and learning for the first time of this nifty tick thingie!). Given latest comments by Cameron Lee in Ausgamer suggesting yet again a connection between new and old Inquisitions, splitting seems premature. Agree with previous comments that First Inquisition material is unlikely to be much expanded, so for now it just seems to be background to how/why they created the new one and appropriate to keep here. If the background does become more extensive or we learn that the new Inquisition is really a very different entity than the original, then seems we should revisit.

For now, I think we still do not know how different the purposes of the two organizations are. Both seem to be organizations created outside the law to do what the law cannot, whether that's protect from rogue dark magic or protect from demons pouring out of the Fade. It could be as simple as that. --R2sMuse (talk) 01:24, May 20, 2014 (UTC)

Seeing as my vote is the only one that matters, I say split them. And by the way; where's the freakin' war room info??? Shadizar666 (Ruck Rules) 06:41, November 22, 2014 (UTC)

Wording in the first paragraph[edit source]

"The Inquisition later joined with the Chantry and became the Seekers of Truth and the Templar Order."

From what I understand, the Seekers of Truth *were* the first Inquisition, so they couldn't have become Seekers of Truth after joining the Chantry. They had no allegiance to the Chantry when they were first formed. See respective codex entries. <- Kewpies (talk) 14:39, December 17, 2014 (UTC)

Dev Comments on the Inquisition post trespasser[edit source]

Templar Inquisitoin Post Trespasser statements.png" -Seekers of Truth heraldry.pngHD3 (Talk) 23:55, June 28, 2017 (UTC)

Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.