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

There’s a dark comedy from 1909 called “Charmed, I’m sure” where the phrase is meant as sarcastic; that use has been around for more than a century.

Also, it’s not elegant to specify that what you’re saying is true. There’s an implicit assumption that stuff you’re saying is true. Another assumption about language is that what you’re saying is relevant. Specifying “this statement is true” is irrelevant if the statement actually is true; it’s only relevant if you’re being sarcastic.

Edit: maybe I shouldn’t be so categorical. In truth I’m not positive about this interpretation. Another explanation could be Gale saying “I’m sure you’re charmed by me”

A comedy where it was meant as such as the focal joke of the media is more of a proof that, outside of that, it was not taken to be so.

"I'm sure that you mean well" is another modern form of a similar usage - and it's not sarcastic or insulting. It's usually used in a sincere attempt to be polite and understanding without accepting the point or stance wholesale. I can be use sarcastically or in condescension, but that's on the person using it, not any innate implication in the phrase.

I'm not saying that Gale is not being sarcastic or attempting to insult backhandedly (and given his delivery, I could certainly see someone reading an element of "yes, yes, be nice to the cretins" to it) - I'm saying that you should recognise that any interpretation that he is is just that - a player-side interpretation that is not carried inherently in the words or phrase used.

In short, I'm sure you mean well, but I sincerely disagree. ^.~

If you can't grok it from the VO, this might be a situation where a translation might shed light on the connotation. Or it could be purposely ambiguous, in keeping our more subtle companions

Also Niara I think you meant to say inherently sarcastic and mistrustful.

@Niara: though I agree with your conclusion about the phrase “Charmed, I’m sure”, I’m baffled by the reasoning.
Back on topic, Gale doesn’t seem super charmed by Tav on first meeting, suggesting his bark is sarcastic. But I’ve been playing Bg3 on a potato, so maybe the performance of the actors didn’t really come accross.

I didn't read it as sarcastic but as insincere. Gale is a manipulator and words are simply tools designs to produce his favored outcome. So he probably wanted to indicate that he was indeed pleased to meet you but the flat delivery of the line, the excessive formality and the rest of his behavior speak to his insincerity.

Sorry if I miscommunicated, Flooter - and yes, English is far messier and confusing that a lot of native English speakers recognise, a lot of the time. Those sorts of phrase can very well be used to condescend and to insult, very much so, but just as often they aren't and are completely sincere at their face value... interpretation of tone and context are your only real clues there, and that can be harder to unpick if it's not your primary language.

To Sozz, I wasn't meaning to specifically say that the phrase wasn't inherently (or intrinsically ^.~) mistrustful or sarcastic (though I do further that it's not, you're right), just that when we make interpretations of meaning or motive, we need to check ourselves carefully as to whether we're mapping something onto a character's words ourselves, and how much of that is actually there, versus how much of that is our impression of the character leading us to put things there that aren't - for good or ill; I freely admit that my own proclivities incline me to interpret characters like Gale more charitably.

My interpretation of Gale in that moment wasn't negative - for me, with my lenses, it was flat and less than enthused, yes, but it came out as "I am being polite, because I feel that's important, even in this situation. I'm tired, everything has gone to hell, and I doubt you're going to help that... but I should still be polite." Which, to me, is not an incriminating delivery.

Disagree. For example,

A: Man, I just can't figure this out

B: *tries to help*

A: "I'm sure you mean well, but I should figure this out myself"

Who is talking, where they're from, what socioeconomic status they come from, etc, all play a role in how language is meant.

Now, the phrase is very much passive aggressive, and I can't think of a situation where it wouldn't be aggressive.

I agree with Niara on this. I think the line just comes off as obligatory. He's saying it because he feels it's what should be said in the situation, because he feels he should be polite. To me it comes off as him saying it kind of automatically, while his mind is on other things, for example, the alien parasite in his head or the magical explosive in his chest. I don't think he's being manipulative (not least because we see later that if he wanted to be manipulative, he can be much better at it) he's just talking.

You absolutely did not, and have nothing to be sorry about. I had litteral proof of what you meant and I still felt slighted - which is an indictment on my ego, not your communication skills. In hindsight, my post was the result of misplaced anger, for which I apologize.

Also, I keep doing that thing where I join a thread without engaging with the core premise, so here goes. Lying, to me, isn't necessarily a breach of trust. I place my trust in people whose goals I understand. I expect a scorpion to lie about wanting to sting me; I trust they will act as a scorpion does.

1. Shadowheart : I've no idea want she wants. Who knows what kind of goals she'll have when her memory returns?

2. Gale : The thing that makes me distrust Gale the most is his reaction if Tav betrays the druid grove. He threatens to leave but can be talked down with a charisma check. If you're one roll away from renouncing your principles, Gale, how strongly held are your stated beliefs?

3. Astarion : I know exactly what he wants : blood. Do I trust him to stay away from my neck? If I know for sure where his meals are coming from (ie from active combat where I can see him) then yes. A sated vampire is not a dangerous one. I wouldn't let him leave the party alive, though. That is a recipe for disaster.

4. Lae'zel : Her goals align with mine on a personal level : deal with the tadpole, any way we can. Lae'zel is rude to basically everyone she meets, which shows stability in her character. I feel like I know what she'll do in any given situation, which makes me trust her. The slight distrust I have left is because her true loyalty is to Vlaakith rather than the party. What can you do?

5. Wyll : for some reason, I trust Wyll the most, even though he repeatedly lies to Tav. In the end, though, I feel I know what his values are, and that he actually stands by them. Yes, he lies about being a warlock but I'd expect a warlock to lie about their patron. Besides I know he's a warlock because I've seen him use Eldritch Blast (and I've seen his character sheet...). He also lies about Spike, but I don't feel like adding another goblin's name to the hit list betrays his ideals or the party's objectives. We were going to bathe in blood anyway; Spike usually ends up dead with or without Wyll. Just like Lae'zel, he has split loyalties, but until we find Mizora I think he can be trusted.

I admit to skipping from page #3 to #8, but I will risk this not being linked to yet:



https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0014.html
IMO on topic of "trust in party members" :P

That was perfect lol

On topic:

Lae: She's too dumb to betray us, she doesn't even understand her own culture

SH: She's too needy to betray us, hell, I tried ignoring her and she tracked me down to help me

Gale: he'll go crazy i'm sure if you don't feed him

Wyll: too boring to betray us

Ass: too dead to betray me

Alfina: best girl, will never betray us

Fair enough and no harm done, Flooter ^.^

I feel that assessing and understanding people is one thing, but I don't feel it's what we usually mean when we talk about trusting people. It's definitely important, just as one can say "I know this person's drives and motives, so I know they'd sell me out in a second to pursue their own goals... so I had best not put us in a position where that can happen" - but that doesn't mean you can trust them, just that you can predict them and act accordingly.

Here's a metric to consider: How far out of the pursuit of their own direct goals will this person put themselves in order to look out for me? That is to say, if we are pursuing mutual goals, and can obtain them, but a situation arises where I need help, but those goals might be delayed or their chances of success harmed to do so - to what extent delay or risk will this person wear, to save or help me?

Shadow: Her 'front' of a cold Sharran would demand none at all, while her underlying instinct would want to push greatly to help - I cannot know which way she will flip, however, and so for now I cannot 'trust' her as a companion. If she were not busy being a Sharran, she very much would be the sort who would put herself out or at risk in order to pursue right action, or assist me in a time of need... but her other side is not.

Astarion: Depends on how much he feels like he still needs me, and how funny he thinks my failure or death would be; he would not dash back to pull me up from the cliff while running away from the giant boulder, but he would look back over his shoulder to see what happened. I cannot trust him.

Lae'zel: Will bend her goals and their chances by very little, if at all, and would leave me to fend for myself if helping me risked her own chances. I cannot trust her as a companion.

Wyll: Quite possibly the worst of this bunch; he will make assurances to the contrary, lie cheat and deceive to feed his ego and image, but when the chips are down, he will not actually *be* the hero he sells himself as, if it means delaying or impacting his goals. He is a completely disgusting character, untrustworthy in the extreme, and his continued bare-faced lying even when every involved party knows he is lying only makes this worse. He promises the druids that he will help protect them... but the *Moment* he learns about where Mizora has been taken, his immediate goal is to pursue HER, NOT to continue with removing the goblin leadership and ensuring the safety of the grove - he wants to abandon the druids and go after Mizora *immediately*, and his promise to them be damned. If the same thing happened to me: I needed Wyll's help for something, and he had to choose between keeping the promise that he made to me to do so, or pursuing a hot lead on Mizora... we've literally already *Seen* which way Wyll leaps. Wyll cannot be trusted as a companion, on almost any level.

Gale: Gale is the ONLY companion who, upon seeing a terrible situation and wickedness that the party has the power to right, which has *no bearing* on their actual goals in the moment, is strongly in favour of stepping in to do the right thing. He steps up to motion this before Wyll, and there is no-one around to grant them fame or glory for their actions - not even the good will of the people they save, if they manage to save anyone; it's just the right thing to do, and he is the one who wants to do it. Gale is a pragmatist - a ruthless one, for sure, and a lot of people underestimate how grey a ruthless pragmatist can be. He is not a 'Good' person - his pragmatism prevents it for the most part - but he tries to be, when it's feasible, and he's more or less our only companion who will, after assessing a risk (I fully expect that if he believed that the party could not handle the threat with acceptably low risk, he would advice discretion instead, even if that meant more would suffer), put himself out to pursue right action. I feel that, within moderate limits, I *can* trust Gale to save or help me in a moment when it may impose risks or delays on his personal goals, if he views helping me as the right thing to do. Those moderate limits may not be very high, but they're higher than for any other companion, and his efforts towards right action, when they occur, do not seem to be purely performative - as Wylls most definitely are.

Personally I think all of our companions will have a reason to betray us, one that will come up by the end of the act, with our actions up to that point determining if their personal objective is overridden by their camaraderie to the party, or the PC.

I think a lot of people are misreading Shadowheart's trustworthiness. The only reason we've never hit a serious point of friction with her is because nothing we've done so far as interfered with her objective of returning the artifact to Baldur's Gate. She mostly views our situation with detachment and disinterest (except for the temple). If we suddenly decide that returning to BG isn't a priority I think that would change.

@Niara - I continue to find the distance between our interpretations of Wyll and Gale entertaining. If you could see my face you would see an enormous smile.

Like @Flooter I trust Wyll. Not as much as I trust Lae'zel - who would absolutely cut off the head my toon if she thought she was about to transform or if she sincerely believed Vlaakith wanted her to do so.

I go back and forth - Wyll or Lae'zel? Lae'zel took our side *and our instruction* when speaking with her people and that counts for a great deal. Besides she's already been betrayed by the Gith once if she were to be attacked by Gith again her faith in her people might hit a crisis point.

On Wyll I give him lots of leeway because of the nature of his connection to Mizorra. From the art and Wyll's description it seems she's an Alu Fiend and his concern for her / romantic attraction to her is likely due to her infernal charm. Wyll is under her spell.

This comes out in the intimacy scene with Tav. At first Wyll can't perform but a charismatic Tav can persuade Wyll to ignore Mizora's charm and focus on her. That scene seems like something of a synecdoche for the rest of his story. Will Wyll be consumed by his failings -- his love of glory, his want for power, his willingness to abandon ethics in pursuit of a goal -- or will he become the hero he imagines himself to be? The romance scene tells us that if Tav believes in him enough the lazy gloryhound can actually become the blade of frontiers.

I trust Wyll because failings come across as a tension and he's demonstrated an ability to break in the direction of goodness. He's not a good person but he wants to be one.

I rarely diagree with @Sozz and they're right once again. I'm not certain what we have to do to ensure that SH will side with the party and not with the Sharans come a crisis point. I suspect it depend upon how many memories we've recovered. My guess is that class ledger will be important because her name will be the key to unlocking her memory. And Larian just likes to do this - make a seemingly unimportant item incredibly important. I remember discovering power of tea in DOS2 . . .

Edit: Forgot to say, @Niara that your observations about Astarian were spot on.

Aw, shucks KillerRabbit :s . You know, I thought in that scene with Wyll, Mizora might actually be able to see through the sending stone, and was commenting on the proceedings. I think for sure she's talking to him during it, it's been a while since I played through it though. I'm interested to see how that scene might play out from Wyll's perspective.

Mizora wants to perv on Wyll getting nookie, and he'd rather she didn't ^.^

I think that if Wyll is one "I'm sexier, just think of me tonight" roll away from shutting Mizora out, that's more of an indication that there's no magical charm involved. I wouldn't say that Wyll necessarily wants to be good, but is failing at it for the most part; I'd say he wants to Be Seen to be good. He's not interested in taking right action that goes against his personal immediate needs... Unless there is a larger watching audience to judge or laude him for it. I think he probably would like to be a good person, and to be the hero the portrays, but only insofar as it generates the perks of heroism and fame for him. If he were to be offered the option of being a great hero and doing a greatly heroic thing... but which no-one would know about, OR pursuing bloody vengeance and achieving his goals through excessive violence and murder, also which no-one would know about... Wyll would, 100% guaranteed, choose the latter, at least on my reading of him. I'm sure he can be influenced to become genuinely good and heroic.. but the person he is right now lies continually to my face after being called out on doing so, and gaslights my character about it, demeaning me as a crazy idiot, even when we both know he's been found out... He would not risk his life to save mine, unless there were adoring fans to watch him do it, and he especially would not do so if it interfered with the pursuit of his own goals... Remember again: He promised the druids he would help them, and be the hero they needed... and yet the moment his personal goals move away from the goblin camp, his impulse is to abandon that promise and those people, immediately, to pursue his goals; that is what he wants to do, and that is what he would choose to do if no-one was watching him. What if the promise of help was to me? Could I trust him to keep it? Empirically, right now, no, I absolutely cannot.

I don't give Wyll a lot of leeway because he doesn't need or deserve it in my mind: he has no reason to continue lying or deceiving us, once his secret is out, yet he chooses to. He has no reason to be rude, dishonest and deceitful to us after we identify what's going on, but he chooses to. His urging to abandon the goblins and druids after making a promise to them, in order to pursue the new lead with Mizora is entirely his choice, and one that reflects poorly on him as a trustworthy individual. There is no evidence to suggest that his poor behaviour stems from anything other than his own poor character. I also don't appreciate people treating me like I'm stupid when I've called them out on something or demonstrated that I'm not, and I especially don't like them acting all buddy-buddy to me after doing so, without an apology... Wyll does both these things.

You make good points about Lae'zel, KR - after the events we've seen in act one, there's more grounds to suppose a building loyalty to our character with her; the betrayal by her own people is a big blow to her, and I'll accept that she may be more steadfast with us than she would openly admit to, after it all falls out and we support her... but it's worth remembering that being so would go strongly against her entire upbringing and life to date, and that's a big turn for her to grapple with.

I'd like to add to Astarion: After we survive the rolling boulder that he watched to see if we'd get squished by, Astarion will also come back to joke about it, and assure us that he knew we would be fine, and look, we were fine, so no harm done, is there?

If Larian goes with the party exclusion again, then yeah, I agree it's very likely their various reasons for betraying us will be the leverage used at the end of the act to justify that. I'm still saying that it's weak and uninspired story-telling, and mechanically dissatisfying to boot, and I hope they don't do that again.

It's also likely that choosing to see the best in our companions will eventually bring that about to being the truth, so each of these characters will have a path of being influenced to being their best interpretation, with us... I'm trying to focus on where they are now, without our influence, but there's no denying they're set up this way, to be changeable.

Gale, he usually finds himself eating dirt every play through.

Edit* Reason, he's a wizard

Have you seen Tav? Found yourself awestruck by her presence? Wowed by her way with words? She's very persuasive. What infernal contract could hope to compete?


Of course they're lots to what you say. Wyll is an instagram influencer and he reminds me of a certain vegan influencer who was caught eating fish . . . He's a gloryhound and not the hero he's made out to be. BUT. I don't think he would choose to become the feared and revered chosen of Shar if that particular decision offered more glory. Not impossible of course but Tav would need to focus her considerable talents towards Wyll's corruption.

There's a certain way he wants to be perceived and while glory is one of his motivations I don't think it's the only one. He wants to be seen as a hero and he seems to feel sincere regret for signing the contract.

I read his lies as bad attempts to keep his secret and he confesses to them almost immediately. I didn't take it as gaslighting - more like a kid caught with hand in a cookie jar claiming he was just trying to help mom by cleaning the insides the jar. The lies are so clumsy they are easy to forgive.

Now, again, you are right to say that Wyll, like Gale, is not telling the full truth about his contract. His initial motivation was probably violent and murderous. And we don't what know what Mizorra wanted from Wyll when she wanted "everything". I'm guessing she wanted a baby.

But, again, he shows sincere signs of remorse. Unlike a certain Wizard.


Agreed - I didn't like that aspect of DOS2 at all. I didn't enjoy fighting my former / would be companions and hope they don't repeat that.

I'm glad you have taken the position of critic - the game really needs one and I hope they are taking your feedback to heart. I think the game has a mix of good and bad story telling. There are some talented writers at Larian - I really enjoy the conversations at camp. Those writers may be being hampered by decisions made by upper management. Time will tell.

What's she got that I don't?!? [POUTS]

Mizorra has entered the chat.