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.
this is right, some players have already asked the question, but i think there is no time to do change?
Originally Posted by geala
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).
i think only if your player character's alignment is "evil chaos" or "evil neutral", this will happen. this is, if you choose the alignment of the absolute(help gobiln camp), you will be the most dangerous and least trustworthy amount your companions.
but if you choose the dark evil way, you ought to get "penalty points", enough "penalty points" will lead you to multiple unhappy ending.
