Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - General What Companion don't you Trust?

Could you elaborate? I'm not seeing what you're referring to or meaning.


This is one I've seen others say as well, and I don't get it - it's like they've decided in advance that these individuals are deceptive nasty pieces of work, so anyone who doesn't seem to be is automatically insincere... what, exactly, can you give me some examples, seems insincere about Gale's behaviour? What things does he do or say that 'seem' false?

It's pretty simple: Gale is a genuinely good person, who has made some bad decisions based on poor emotional choices, and backed up by enough knowledge and power to believe he had more capability than he did. That willingness of his to take personal risks for the sake of extravagant gestures and power moves may recur and may be a problem, but there's nothing deceptive about it. He doesn't share all of his problems off the bat - but he does so far sooner and more easily that Shadow does hers, and he rebuffs your early questioning before he's ready to a lot more politely than she does.

Gale approves when you choose to act in a way that is 'right' and 'good', but disapproves if you make promises that your circumstances may not allow you to keep. He approves of helping those in need, but disapproves of doing so in ways that will endanger even more people. He disapproves of sacrificing innocents for personal gain, but approves of aggressive actions against beings who are actively doing harm, or plotting to, even if it's a bit dangerous - as long as we're the only ones being put at risk.

Gale's a pretty open book, as far as his approvals go, arguably more so than most of the others.

(By the by, it's not a glitch that everyone knows everything whether they're in the party or not - seems to be a feature, that gets hand-waved as 'tadpole', even though we don't get to know everything they're doing in the same way.)

Like, it's always these nebulous statements of "He seemed insincere, because he was too friendly" and similar comments - but what are some non-nebulous examples, and what would have been the 'right' move instead, to convey a good, but overconfident character, in those cases?

==

Konmehn.... I'm really not sure what you're talking about or why; what you're saying has, quite literally, nothing to do with anything being discussed in this thread.

I don't 'trust' Wyll or Ghall, I somewhat trust the vamp a little but Lae'zel and Shadowheart are the most honest so far

I don't trust or distrust the companions.
I hope they have interesting personalities, goals, code of conduct etc.
I expect for certain situations we will have the same goals and at other times our goals will not be compatible, and that conflict can make an interesting story.

I love everyone's answers and alot of you make fair points...i dont know who to trust anymore XD

No, I meant that I got "Gale approves" for dialogues when he's not in the party. But, that wasn't all. Every (x) approves but Gale's was removed from my game. The icon when it happened was glitched to an odd ? instead of his face.

Approval for companions still went up, though. I just wasn't notified. More of a glitch than a bug. About half way through the game, it stopped and then I only missed approval notifs in camp. That problem never disappeared. I guess, I was begging for issues for using the work around to get 3 Tavs.

Really unfortunately, I can't tell you exactly what it is for me about Gale. I didn't see it in my first playthrough. But, the longer I spend with him, the fishier he seemed?

I don't think he's evil so much as fishy...

Reminds me incredibly much of my uncle, too. Despite his demeanor, he's not someone reliable, or even good. That no doubt influences my judgement.

The precise falsity I'm thinking of... translates to hypocrisy and disbelief once he does something you absolutely do not think he would. There's people who are not putting on an act and are yet not what they seem to be.

What sets me off most about Gale is that I don't think he regrets any of his actions. Almost anyone would bemoan having an unpredictable bomb in their chest. Where's the fear? I'm sure there's something there... but the amount of darker emotions shared to seeming amount of openness ratio is off the charts low. This could be just his type of personality, yes. But, my gut sees red flags.

If it helps to make sense, Lae'Zel's ratio is off the charts high, making people feel she's (typically) honest and straight forward.

Konmehn is attempting trolling, but hasn't got the art down yet.

Anyone with maxed out affinity, because that's how it usually goes with this stuff.
Even the occasional "betrayer" will have the "redemption quest" available at that point.

Gale and Astarion was only companions whom I trust.
Astarion is quite in classic situation of bad sexy boy, he obviosly will have opportunity to betray us. And obviosly he will choose to stay with us.
And Gale... While camping in Grymforge I have camp scene, where he says, that he didnt need any artifact now. I mindprobe him and see Rafael's house.

I hope agendas are actualized over the course of the story with companions having actual interests and plots that guide their behavior, and not just their flavor text. A legit betrayal. A fundamental clash of interests between two party members leading to harsh choices. A long-running lie that actually culminates in something substantial that operates like a "twist" without being too Shyamalan.

It sucks when lies are obvious, secrets are revealed early, companions have opinions and interests that never matter beyond flavor, and characters like their own agency.

OFF-TOPIC META NONSENSE CONTAINED IN SPOILERS

Camellia was an interesting twist in wotr, there was no redemption, she was simply a sociopath and either you were okay with that or you weren't She wasn't going to stop being who she is regardless of what quest you did.

I think you're correct though, I think it'll be a 'max out affinity and do their quest and they trust you/become nicer'.

The main issue I have with the concept of who to trust and not is that despite having a literal mental-emotional connection to these people, they are apparently able to lie directly to our faces without so much as a deception check (or prompting an insight check from us), and we cannot call them on it or do anything about it. They get to know everything we do, and we cannot lie to them - if we try, they immediately call us out about it and flaunt their tadpole connection on the topic... but we're forced to take everything they say at face value.

For example: Gale is 100% telling the truth about him choosing to sacrifice himself and prevent anyone else from being harmed by his folly, if he reaches a point of no other options. If he is facing the prospect that he is going to explode and there is nothing more he can do about it, he will forego any further attempts at safety on his part, and remove himself to a place where it cannot hurt anyone else. We know he is telling the truth on this ... because, if he's not, then the game is straight up cheating, to let him tell that lie to us without any kind of check or any possibility of us discerning that he might be dishonest.

Point is - he might be lying, and Larian might pull some heel turn with him that shows that his friendly disposition and good-heartedness was all an act, they absolutely might... and if they do, it will not be at all satisfying or acceptable, and will just feel like a really bad DM god-mode dick move, and it will not come off well... because they've given us the tools and mechanics to work out these things, and then not permitted us to use them and told us that those tools all indicate straight forwardness and honesty. So the question is not "Do you trust Gale" - Our tools all tell us that he is completely trustworthy - the question is "Do you trust that Larian is not making the very tools they gave us, lie to us, for the sake of their ham-fisted story-telling"... and it seems that many of you do not trust that. Nor do I, for that matter, and it aggravates me.

I dunno, if Gale were another player at the table, would you want him to roll a deception check, wouldn't that kind of metaknowledge taint the roleplaying.

With the tadpoles we get special options to mind-meld, everything else I think is being acted well enough to convey their perspectives. Gale is pretty cool about his affliction, until you withhold a magic item from him, then he loses his cool, keep doing it, and he might more than lose his cool. Nothing in the sequence is disingenuous.

Either I've forgotten or missed it, when is Tav able to lie to the others?

Gale is not another player - he's an NPC, and if he was presenting something counter to the truth with a goal to deceive the player, then yes, he'd be making a deception check; behind the screen perhaps, but he'd be making one, and it would at very least be checked against the player's passive insight, if the player did not give any signs of other mistrust on their own. You do not get to lie and deceive the players directly to suite your story-telling needs without providing them chance to pick up on the fact that something is off.

If Gale were player actively trying to deceive another player and hide their motive, and the other player thought they might not be completely on the level, then yes, they make either a deception or persuasion check - they do not tell the other player which they are making - and it's a contested check. If the other player's insight wins out, then the other player should reveal which kind of check they were making, and any other relevant information that they feel might be giving them away, if there is more to the picture. It's not mind-reading or brain control, and it's usually adjudicated to be a reasonable degree of give and take, depending on the stakes being questioned.

In a video game, we can't do that - but more importantly we cannot, in most cases, even suggest through dialogue that we don't altogether buy what they're telling us. We are Forced at nearly every turn, to blindly eat up and trust everything they say and everything they tell us, and then, afterwards, react with shock like a kicked puppy when it turns out not to be true, and it's frankly infuriating. The companions also always get the final word on this, and are usually smarmy and condescending about it - all written by the same hand, irrespective of their individual personalities, more or less.

The most prominent point where you can attempt to deceive a party member, and have it fail miserably because she just waves the tadpole at you and reminds you that she, and everyone else, know everything, is when discussing your dreams. Unless of course she's lying about that - again, we don't even have the option of mistrusting her assertion, so we must presume that it is completely true and honest.

=

I agree that nothing seems disingenuous about Gale's delivery; he's clearly confident, learned, but has the kind of personality that is prone to overconfidence and over-estimating his understanding at times; he is proud of his academic achievements and his abilities, and that pride can become a harmful flaw very easily, but most of the time he's quite happy to share his knowledge with others and help educate - he isn't covetous or hoarding of his knowledge, as some academics are, and when others display understanding past his expectations, he's quick to compliment them on it. He views himself as a pragmatist, and when his options run dry he takes risks upon himself, rather than bringing direct harm or difficulty to others; rather than steal your magic items or consume them on the sly, leaving you vulnerable and without things you believed you had, he accepts the sacrifice of staking his own soul with Raphael - frustrated with the party, sure, but confident in his own ability to manage the situation and hopeful still of coming out on top of the deal, somehow.

Nothing seems to indicate that he's not a good and decent person at his core, and nothing that he does or says is particularly dishonest or disingenuous - tactless at times, and a little rude at others, but easily the best of the bunch presented to us. Which will make it all the more aggravating and dissatisfying if Larian turn around later and try to heel-turn him into being secretly and evil megalomaniac who is just good at pretending towards geniality; because they would have god-moded his ability to deceive us unfairly, and their story-telling was too crude, lazy and poor to handle it in a more satisfying way.

I'm taking things at face value because ion other situations, when characters lie, cheat or deceive us, we get insight checks, and here we aren't, so clearly, if our tools are working correctly, they're on the level. If Larian later turn around and say "Oh, we disabled your tools back then so they weren't showing that, haha, isn't that cool?" I won't laud it as skilful story-telling, or clever deception by the writers - I'll just be put off and dissatisfied, because all they will have really done is breach the trust between the viewer and the story-teller, to the detriment of the story experience.

I like Gale; to me, he seems like a stand up person, a good guy and a perfectly reasonable individual who has the best for everyone in mind, to the extent that he pragmatically can. He's a guy who fucked up, majorly, and is carrying that burden - quite literally in his chest - and hasn't necessarily conquered his hubris yet either, despite that, but otherwise is clearly the best and most heroic individual out of our current companions, by a long measure (with caveat for the liklihood that Shadowheart is brainwashed and is an otherwise heroic Selune worshipper, who is also probably Selune's chosen, and Shar's chosen, and the living avatar embodiment of the proof of the darkmoon heresy, destined to bring balance and unity to the twin goddesses. Tell me I'm wrong, I dare you)... provided that the tools that Larian have given us are working correctly, as Larian tells us currently that they are.

Actually, video games make this sort of contest all the more possible to do well. You can have double-blind skill checks, Gale could roll a Deception check, and Tav an Insight check without the player ever knowing; with the result being folded into the dialogue without fanfare. One of the few instances roleplaying is better with a computer.

That isn't to suggest Larian is doing anything like that, but something to keep in mind.

Calling someone out on there self-reported backstory, I'm not entirely with you, especially before it has serious bearing on you or the adventure...I'm of two minds.

Gale could go through a heel turn without his first statement being untrue, it could be something he believed at the time, that would be true for a PC or NPC. I'd accept that of Tav, though I'd appreciate a little narrative coherence between those two states. Without it, it becomes ad hoc storytelling, very dissatisfying.

I loved you Shadowheart! You were supposed to bring balance to the Weave! Not leave it in darkness!

I'm sorry that's all I could think of when I read that.

One thought went through my head reading these. How trustworthy is our Tav? I mean, it takes minimum of two to talk of trust and I've seen plenty of Youtube play throughs where Tav was everything between honest do-gooder and murder hobo.

Or put another way, if we're able to betray any companion they must have trusted Tav. So which companions can we betray the most? Does it stand to reason they're the most trustworthy?

I started a play through with a Cha-expertise charlatan rogue with the plan to dupe and play everyone off. Couldn't get into it, but might try again.

Et tu, @Niara?

I'll say it. You are wrong. Larian can certainly present things this way with SH, but as a 'good' character, perhaps even as a Selunite character, my PC would reject such a lame-ass storyline and consider her to be a murderer who betrayed Selune. And I would expect that Larian will provide me, the player, the opportunity to play my 'good' character in this way and not block me from reacting this way to such a lame-ass storyline for SH.

Shadowheart was the secret main character. We're just someone she made up in her autobiography to blame the group's bad decisions on

We can already betray Astarion, and probably in the future once again. I'm not sure how withholding artefacts and Gale bartering his soul (?) counts. Karlach is killable before she's an ally. We might get more options to opt out of defending her. I suppose you can only really make fun of Wyll in Bg after acting sympathetic.

I think Astarion and Karlach are winning at the moment. That's not too hard as de facto escaped slaves, though.

thats fair

how do we get to betray Astarion?

You can hand him over to Gandrel. Who will knock him out and return him to his enslaver vampire master. Since this is possible at high approval, it can be pretty damn evil.