One of the reasons those reactions and actions bear no cost is Gale being a companion, not a MC. [...] If one hasn't yet established his personality fully, how can you state that they are neutral? Neutral does not equal "did nothing substantial" or "beared no heavy cost to one's actions". I made the analysis - the list, from a standpoint of the limited data we have from the EA, datamined materials excluded. With the info we have, Gale definately reaches for the Good rather than Neutral. Unless you have some strong argument regarding his actions that I haven't noticed.
Sure, Gale might exhibit many more Good tendencies as we continue through the story and see more of his thoughts/desires/actions. Or, because of companion passivity in BG3, we might never be able to witness enough actions by him to make a conclusion about his alignment that ~everyone agrees on. And of course, while Alignments may have specific God/Plane-tied definitions in 5e, determining an individual's alignment is much more tricky and subjective unless they're cartoonishly Evil/Good/etc. I agree that Gale is closer to Good than Evil, but I don't really have any more arguments besides what I and others have presented so far.
