To Gale, and also the rest partly, a lot of interactions which may seem dubious come from the dubious game mechanic of cRPGs. Why Gale for example has to ask for the use of the magical artifacts? He fought for and found the artifacts to the same amount as the player. Why does he not just use an artifact he found? He doesn't even do if I put it into his inventory. He cannot because only we make decisions.
In the real world it wouldn't be clear at all that our player char would be the big boss and the others were puppets. I don't want to be the boss, I want to roleplay a more passive char, but I cannot. Gale has to convince me, so he (the game) has to give us reasons to allow it or not, which wouldn't necessarily be there in reality. Nobody of the companions seems to be a weak minded person who would automatically buckle to our "hero". In a real group maybe there would be a vote? Of course, if the game would give the companions equal rights and e.g. decide matters randomly, there would be an uproar from the players, and rightly so, because we want some control (play Mount and Blade Bannerlord and suffer from the AI decisions, to compare). But the inequality between "Tav" and the rest may explain some behaviour.
So from the possibilities for betrayal the most dangerous and least trustworthy individual around is the player char. Take Wyll, as Spike offered him information about Mizora if Wyll tortered the prisoner, Wyll denied (which makes him the contrary of "selfish and not reliable" to me), but the player could overrule him and torture and in this way betray Wyll's convictions. If the player chose to torture, I would leave him as companion, but the poor companion guys/gals at most have the ability to agree/disagree (as far as I'm aware, maybe there will be more important decisison to be made and companions can leave, but I doubt it).
