Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - Suggestions & Feedback [bug] during the Auntie fight

Once after she disguised herself into her silly guest, when I target either of them, the hit chance percentage still sold out her right way. Means the real hag got much lower hit chance displayed regardless of the disguise. Also, if I have the Knockout passive enabled and hit the real hag, since she only got 8 hp at the moment, she instantly falls into knocked out state for good, then I can finish off her without any further trouble while she still got half of her hp.

Not sure if this was intended though.

Yeah there are a lot of ways to "out" Auntie Ethel in that fight. I am hoping they fix that in release. I wouldn't call it a bug though, just a slight oversight.

Also why you kill Auntie Ethel? Auntie is friend.

Mayrina is the silly guest btw. Mayrina is an idiot.

Auntie Ethel is too nauty, Auntie can use some punishment ;D

I'm not sure what to do. It is quite obvious that the "Mayrina" with the lower hit chance is Auntie Ethel. If you cannot see it and the result is random, however it may just be an incentive for save scumming. I would leave it as it is, probably.

BTW I always kill Auntie Ethel. She is the only really evil creature in the game. Other than the Goblins, Drow, Duergar etc. she has no factual agenda and goals other than her pleasure with torturing and killing. I would throw out anybody from the party who showed the slightest doubt what to do with her. On the meta, I would delete the game from the harddrive if you had to support her. Mayrina on the other hand loves her husband. I can understand and always help her.

Maybe not that much needs of save scumming as a result. Bcs by the time Auntie mimics Mayrina, there might still be one or two of her illusion copies around for the player party to spend their action points and maybe drink a potion or two. Too bad I haven't see Dispel Magic around, but letting a low str companion to throw something light weight might prevent accidentally dealing lethal damage on true Mayrina. A spell of Sleep would probably help telling which one is which since the real Auntie probably quite "immune" to that spell.


More likely a chaotic neutral being to me: she is as providing as the mother nature herself, and as merciless as the mother nature herself. Gale talks about some mortal's folly, and just like Karsus and Gale, those who seek help from that hag had each their own kind of folly. She is the type that as long as you don't cross her nor obsessed on something, then you will be fine. The tiefling nanny had her pot setup right next to Ethel's, yet she was left unharmed. So does the rest of tieflings and druids, except for the one on warehouse guard duty(but she will be fine, any priest in Baldur's Gate can cure her). If you reject her offer, she just won't push you. Will the Absolute and its agents do the same? Those are the really evil creatures in the game. Auntie? Only half evil as them.

If you roleplay a ranger then you should kill her

I see it differently. Mother nature does not exist, there is a bundle of natural rulesets you can learn, it's always the same, predictable, without emotions. Ethel is a trap, a lyer, a creature (?) which has pleasure in killing and torturing people, at best she sees others as stuff she can kick around or destroy. She is the insane serial killer in the world. It's stupid to ask her for help, of course. But if no people would come to her, she would lure them because she needs living stuff to play with. The druids etc. she does not touch because she doesn't want a fight but only victims, like any criminal.

The Absolute is of course evil, he/she/it has to, that's because of the primitive ethical system of DnD. Any simple story needs a villain. Otherwise, after you killed x thousand goblins, you could perhaps ask yourself moral questions, as your behavior objektively is the same or worse than that of your victims, you are a mass killer. You are the hero because you kill for the greater good, luckily the game tells you so. If you side with the goblins, you know you are playing the "evil way".

Not necessarily. Rangers can be evil you know. They work with the dark aspects of nature. Shadow Druids, Blights, and Hags being a few.


This is a good point and it's one way of looking at the Hag.

Another way of looking at her is that she weeds out the weak and the foolish. From Ethels own perspective she is constantly bombarded by foolish mortals who annoy her with their lack of common sense and selfish requests. This is an Ancient creature that is deeply wise because of her experiences with the Multiverse. So some Elf comes to her - hat in hand - and doesn't know whether to marry someone or not - AND has not brought a proper gift or offering or payment then she is going to have her fun with him.

If you approach a Hag you best know how to do it safely. You don't ask a Hag for favors because she doesn't do favors - she isn't your servant and owes you nothing. You best have a gift in hand to stand in her presence at all, or have been summoned because you have something she wants, or be ready to keep a respectful tongue in your mouth and negotiate a proper price for your request.

Is she Evil, you bet your ass she is. That doesn't necessarily means she deserves to die. Evil is a point of view that is often as valid as good. From a larger perspective is is a form of Darwinism. She improves the species by weeding out the weak and foolish.

Ethel is my fav.

I just want to add that Larian did a fucking amazing job with Ethel, writign, voice acting, art and abode. God damn guys.

Mother nature is as real as Auntie Ethel, just like the nature order is as real as Auntie Ethel's principle.
Say, a city kid decides to cross a desert on foot because he thought that would be cool, he prepared none and went there and died. One shall not challenge the nature with only ego.
Auntie Ethel's storyline is the reflection of this with an image of a pagan "goddess", an ancient and powerful fey creature as in game. And since she is a humanized character, she then become qualified to be defined as Evil. But does she seek preys? I think not. Even Mayrina was sent by her sister, another fey creature just like Ethel. Ethel has the needs of a baby for whatever the fey magic she practices, but did she go village by village and tricking villagers to offer her one? Or did Ethel steal one?
I agree with the claim that says Auntie Ethel been not good, which is either neutral or evil. But as blunt as "really evil"? I don't think so. She can still be avoid. Even in BG, a fantasy world, there are ruleset about Vivify and Cure Disease, Restoration, and so on. You don't need to travel all the way down to some unfamiliar wildness instead of simply visiting a nearby temple or potion/scroll shop.

And Shovel.

Since the Neolithic Revolution the humans decided that nature is to be formed, I bet something similar happened on Toril. So, if Ethel is a part of nature, she can be and needs to be removed, like the Bubonic plague or polio, or beards from faces.

But for me she appears not nearly as something natural, nothing comparable does exist. She is an artificial abomination. If she would be emotionless and cruel but sometimes helpful, ok, but she does not help, nobody, never. She feigns help but just acts for her own pleasure and always tricks and tortures the other people in the process and results. Of course she has some amazing goodies to offer to those who are strong in arms and weak in moral.

Otherwise btw she isn't necessarily the brightest bulb in the box either, getting in the way of our killer hero. Seemingly she forgot that she can vanish only two times a row, she wasted her chances. Sad performance for such an old and mighty monster.

Where we can perhaps agree is that the Ethel story is a nice side questline, or part of the main questline, I really like the character in that regard. I hope there would be a lot more of similar stories in the further game.

Setting aside the genuinely interesting talk about the philosophy of nature and what i goodor evil in relation to it, that stuff actually has no bearing on Ethel. Hags aren't representatives of nature, not really. They're as inherently, innately cruel as any demon or devil. They're sadistic, treacherous and manipulative. They're not some neutral force that will leave you alone if you don't cross them. They manipulate and tempt and trick. She wants Mayrina's baby to eat it and turn it into another hag. Sure she can be avoided, sure Mayrina had other options, but that doesn't change the fact that Ethel WANTS to be cruel, wants to hurt and corrupt at every avenue she can. That's like saying loan sharks or predatory lenders aren't evil or immoral just because you can avoid them. They still prey on the weak and defensless, the unwise or the poor and desperate. Even in her lair we find a dwarf that she tricked so that he made a deal with her.

Not beard plz, I love having beard. xD But I do agree that the being like Ethel need to be removed, that's why I remove her every time, even my Tav has always been an evil one who also removes that owlbear mother every time.

My argument was not about she been a representative of the nature, but instead trying to explain that I think her cruelty is at a similar level of what the nature order could be which is my reason why I think she can be classified into the "neutral" alignment. Can sadistic and manipulative creature be neutral? The Inquisitor from previous BG was even Lawful Good. So why can't our good old Auntie Ethel be "Chaotic Neutral"?

I don't know anything about any inquisitor so I can't really make a call on that. What I can make a call on is that being neutral implies not caring about good or evil. Hags do care, and they will choose to be evil and cruel at every opportunity. She does what she does not because its the best way for her to get what she wants, but because the cruelty and suffering is part of what she wants, even when not being cruel would take less effort.

Also it's not even truly a case of "stay out of her way and you'll be fine. She does seek prey. You say yourself that her sister sent Mayrina. That's not random chance, that's coordination within a coven. Either Ethel put the word out she was looking for a victim to get a baby, or her sister simply saw an opportunity and took initiative. Either way that's a conspiracy to find and lure a vulnerable victim, undertaken by at least two, probably three very old, powerful and manipulative beings that by nature seek to harm. And its not like Mayrina, a grieving widow, had other viable options to bring her husband back. Bringing the dead back via clerics would cost far more than a villager could ever afford, hundreds of gold.

On second thought, you are right about this. And although none of her potions sold to me was harmful, but this might only because of the early access.

There's just one unique dialog option for ranger class which leads to killing her. It's scripted for default ranger

In the world of D&D Demons, and devils and Yugoloths are part of the natural order. They are a side effect of mortal evil as an essence that can be distilled into actual objects and creatures that are imbued with that essence. It's genesis is in mortal need and conflict.

The Githyanki are Lawful Evil. They kill and plunder on the Astral Plane. They do it for 3 main reasons.
1) Resources they feel they are owed because of the war they fight against the Illithid.
2) Anyone who can't defend themselves from the Githyanki will eventually become thralls for the Illithid and they will have to kill them anyway.
3) To train and prepare their own people to fight the Illithids. Inexperienced Githyanki have a chance to increase their skills in raiding.

They are a militant people who have done more to destroy the Illithids than anyone (to the point of near extinction which is likely what brings us to the events of this story) - and have never forgotten that no one helped them when they were slaves.

The Githyanki create evil because of their actions. This evil becomes part of The Hells in a number of ways I won't delve into. It is 100% part of the natural order.

Evil is as valid a point of view as good. Oftentimes Evil can be just as or much more effective than good in making the realms a better place.

Speaking of Good, there are types of good that are completely ineffective (self righteousness) or even useless like innocence. Just like there is Evil that can be self-destructive or too narcissistic to be useful.

The Hag is part of nature. She is part of the Dark Feywild. Yes, she is a predator, and predators seek prey, always. They seek the weakest in the specifies to prey on always, like all predators do. That prey just happens to be us so we label it evil.

Yet if you are strong, wise, and diplomatic you can coexist with the Hag just fine. The Gur do it because they pass around the wisdom of such things. The Gur are not evil.

Ethel needs to die. But Mayrina also needs to die, I always kill her in my encounter. Such annoying, spoiled selfish brat. It's all about her. Reminds me of my ex.

Ohhhkay. There’s clearly some trauma there and working it through in a video game may be just what you need, I’m not going to judge. But the way you’ve articulated it there is … a little bit terrifying . I’m assuming you don’t actually think that, unlike Mayrina, your ex needs to die, no matter how spoiled or selfish, and that’d just be me extrapolating a step too far. But please don’t tell me if I’m wrong!

The hag clearly isn't part of the nature, she is evil twisted creature, interfering in natural cycles. This kind of hag doesn't protect the forest, but only deform it to her perverted desires. Additionally when role playing a ranger it's clearly pointed out in the dialog option that she must die because of her unnatural and destructive actions