Skip to content

Charnames Mother [SPOILER] and Gorion

ArcanisArcanis Member Posts: 377
in General Discussion (Spoiler Warning!)
Good day - I feel chatty today, sorry =P
Also, full of Spoilers about BG1 AND BG2:ToB, read only if you finished those.. =P

The background of charname always annoyed me a bit.
In BG1 Gorian claims that charnames mother was a former lover of him and Bhaal forced himself upon
the women.
The Solar in ToB says (If I remember correctly) that charnames mother was a priest of Bhaal who didn't..
realy mind Bhaals advances..

Soo I thought of a theory (which could be a completly old news..):
Both is true (shock!) in a way. Gorion is a good natured Harper, he found a dark women fights her and beats her.
The following time he tries to convert her to the good side and seemingly succeds. She becomes a Harper
spy within the temple of Bhaal (and Gorions lover). In truth, she never converts to ...whatever good god the
Harpers like and instead is a double-agent, feeding false information to the Harpers (but with enough truth in
it, so the Harpers don't realise it.. Sacrificing rivals and getting rid of weeklings and such.)
Bhaal comes, she gets pregnant and needs to lie to Gorion about the forcing part (even though Bhaal could have
forced himself on some people, that part is unclear). He believes her and when the Harper raid comes he saves
charname, maybe trying to find the mother but fails (I think it would be pretty chaotic there, so he *might* even
have killed her in the chaos without realising it himself.), thus thinking she died while giving birth.

The second problem is, why did he only save charname?
Well, according to what many other Harpers think, Bhaals essence is corrupting - and all Gorion knew was
that the temple was filled with the childs of Bhaal and his priesthood, evil parents AND evil environment.
So, he (might have) thought that he could save one of them if he concentrated his efforts (and the rest of his
live) on one child and thus he choosed the most promising one: the one of his former lover, the only "good"
mother he knew - he even might have thought himself as the father of charname, since he loved the mother.

So, he didn't abonden the rest out of malice, but of weakness. It is better to take and save one, then take ten
and lose them all...

Well, what do you think of my rambling? I never thought of this myself and also never saw it before, thus
I thought I could post it here.. sorry if other people had this idea before me >_<

Anyways, thanks for your time and have a nice day!

Comments

  • simplessimples Member Posts: 540
    i did a thread on this a while ago, but pretty solid stuff bro
  • FinneousPJFinneousPJ Member Posts: 6,455
    The truth of the matter is the story evolved and changed over time. Still, it's fun theorycrafting.
  • JarrakulJarrakul Member Posts: 2,029
    I always just assumed Gorion lied to give the pc some glimmer of hope that they could be a good person after all.
  • GoodSteveGoodSteve Member Posts: 607
    I think that Gorion lied about Charname's mother. He figured that if Charname didn't know that his mother was an evil Bhaal worshipping cultist, or that Charname didn't even know about his divine background he could raise him without that in the back of Charname's mind influencing him. When Charname is an adult, and has, more or less, become the person his upbringing molded him into then I believe Gorion was gonna drop that bombshell.

    It wouldn't be the first lie that Gorion lied to Charname, since he did withhold that Imoen was related to Charname and was no doubt saved right alongside Charname from that same temple of Bhaal. I mean, it would be a pretty rediculous coincidence that two children of Bhaal, both aged basically the same, grew up alongside each other in the same small cloistered community, raised by two prominent members of the community (the local sage, and the inn keeper) with absolutely no connection whatsoever.
  • scriverscriver Member Posts: 2,072
    It's stated outright that Imoen arrives at Candlekeep years after CHARNAME, so no, they aren't from the same place originally.
  • BaldursCatBaldursCat Member Posts: 432
    edited February 2015
    scriver said:

    It's stated outright that Imoen arrives at Candlekeep years after CHARNAME, so no, they aren't from the same place originally.

    Ah, see I have theory about that. I actually decided that my current charname & Immy are (non-idential) twins, however it was initially decided that they should be separated for their own protection, but Imoen's guardian is no longer able to take care for her so she too is taken to Candlekeep, a little like Harry Potter at Hogwarts, it's a place that's been made as secure as possible, but not completely secure.

    Also, why is the assumption that Bhaal is always the male in any unions? Could it be possible that "he" gave birth to them charname in female human form & actually both stories are true because Gorion was fooled and is actually Charname's biological father.

  • scriverscriver Member Posts: 2,072
    It's assumed because gender-bending birth shenanigans is Loki territory, and you really don't want to cross him :v
  • ArcanisArcanis Member Posts: 377
    edited February 2015
    I always wondered about HOW Imoen ended in Candlekeep..
    And the problem is that Gorion doesn't seem to know that she is one. (Ok, the writers didn't know it
    either... I guess Irenicus relevation came as a surprise even for them =P)
    I think Imoen is a walking Plot-hole most of the time @_@
    BaldursCat said:

    scriver said:


    Also, why is the assumption that Bhaal is always the male in any unions? Could it be possible that "he" gave birth to them charname in female human form & actually both stories are true because Gorion was fooled and is actually Charname's biological father.

    While I do like this Idea, I'm pretty sure it isn't what he did. =D
    The benefit of being the "male" part is that you can impregnate multiple women and don't need to
    wait 9 month per child ^^'
    I *think* even Goddesses have some pregnency stuff going around, but I'm not absolutly sure here.
    Also, Bhaal was a mortal man once and most man are not very ..comfortable about becoming "mother",
    so, that is also an argument against it imho..

    EDIT:
    scriver said:

    It's assumed because gender-bending birth shenanigans is Loki territory, and you really don't want to cross him :v

    Well, Loki is not a god in Ferûn, so I doubt anyone will worry about that..
    Also, it depends on your definition of gender-bending.. After all Thor once crossdressed so he could
    flirt with a giant =P (ok, it was Lokis plan to get Mjölnir back, but it was still Thor who was in drag ;-) )

  • scriverscriver Member Posts: 2,072
    @Arcanis - A couple of weeks or so ago I contested Imoen being Gorion's ward too and somebody brought up an ingame text or something (her background info, I believe it was?) showing the contrary. If I recall correctly, that text also said Gorion had brought Unkempt to Candlekeep, albeit a few years after CHARNAME. I don't recall if that was the BG or BG description, though.
  • BaldursCatBaldursCat Member Posts: 432
    Arcanis said:

    I always wondered about HOW Imoen ended in Candlekeep..
    And the problem is that Gorion doesn't seem to know that she is one. (Ok, the writers didn't know it
    either... I guess Irenicus relevation came as a surprise even for them =P)
    I think Imoen is a walking Plot-hole most of the time @_@

    BaldursCat said:

    scriver said:


    Also, why is the assumption that Bhaal is always the male in any unions? Could it be possible that "he" gave birth to them charname in female human form & actually both stories are true because Gorion was fooled and is actually Charname's biological father.

    While I do like this Idea, I'm pretty sure it isn't what he did. =D
    The benefit of being the "male" part is that you can impregnate multiple women and don't need to
    wait 9 month per child ^^'
    I *think* even Goddesses have some pregnency stuff going around, but I'm not absolutly sure here.
    Also, Bhaal was a mortal man once and most man are not very ..comfortable about becoming "mother",
    so, that is also an argument against it imho..
    Hmm, not sure about that, given the number of different races of the progeny it's likely Bhaal took many forms & there's no reason, if say, "he" had an inkling that The ToT was imminent he chose to sire humans, some of the most short-lived creatures on Faerun, last, also "he" could accelerate the whole gestation process, just a thought.

  • elminsterelminster Member, Developer Posts: 16,317
    GoodSteve said:



    It wouldn't be the first lie that Gorion lied to Charname, since he did withhold that Imoen was related to Charname and was no doubt saved right alongside Charname from that same temple of Bhaal. I mean, it would be a pretty rediculous coincidence that two children of Bhaal, both aged basically the same, grew up alongside each other in the same small cloistered community, raised by two prominent members of the community (the local sage, and the inn keeper) with absolutely no connection whatsoever.

    Imoen ended up in Candlekeep 10 years after you did. Its brought up in her BG1 bio. Her showing up in Candlekeep was not a coincidence. In her BG2 bio its mentioned that like you she arrived in the company of Gorion.
  • JoshBGJoshBG Member Posts: 91
    edited February 2015
    Arcanis said:

    I always wondered about HOW Imoen ended in Candlekeep..
    And the problem is that Gorion doesn't seem to know that she is one.

    Elminster's letter to Gorion:

    "As we both know, forecasting these events has proved increasingly difficult, leaving little option other than a leap of faith. We have done what we can for THOSE in thy care, but the time nears when we must step back and let matters take what course they will."

    So I think he knows.
  • RavenslightRavenslight Member Posts: 1,609
    Nonnahswriter said:

    I actually started a short story surrounding Charname's mother. I find her fascinating as a character when you combine both theories. A lot of people just write it off as "Gorion was lying in his letter," but just think of all the drama that would have gone on if she was both a Harper AND a priestess of Bhaal? :smiley:

    I hope you will post your story here when you’ve finished it. I also find her a fascinating subject. I have not truly decided what I believe about her. I do tend towards believing that Gorion loved her and Bhaal took her, as well as many others, by force. Still, I find it very interesting to hear other interpretations.
  • elminsterelminster Member, Developer Posts: 16,317
    Nonnahswriter said:

    I actually started a short story surrounding Charname's mother. I find her fascinating as a character when you combine both theories. A lot of people just write it off as "Gorion was lying in his letter," but just think of all the drama that would have gone on if she was both a Harper AND a priestess of Bhaal? :smiley:

    She could have also started out as one and become the other.
  • NonnahswriterNonnahswriter Member Posts: 2,520
    elminster said:

    Nonnahswriter said:

    I actually started a short story surrounding Charname's mother. I find her fascinating as a character when you combine both theories. A lot of people just write it off as "Gorion was lying in his letter," but just think of all the drama that would have gone on if she was both a Harper AND a priestess of Bhaal? :smiley:

    She could have also started out as one and become the other.
    It's funny you should mention that...

    >.>

    <.<
  • TuthTuth Member Posts: 233
    edited February 2015
    As always, introducing a retcon to the story usually brings some plotholes along with it. The part that was in ToB with Gorion's ghost was, to me at least, made up either by the solar, or the ghost itself (could be an illusion or whatever). So, it is the other way around and Gorion in his letter was not lying. Anyone can have his or her own theory about Charname's mother, which is fine to me.
  • AramintaiAramintai Member Posts: 232
    edited February 2015
    I think it was a retcon, but trying to tie things up leads me to believe that Gorion lied in his letter, because he didn't want to upset Charname about the circumstances of how he\she became Gorion's ward.

    The more interesting retcon puzzle is the age of Charname and Sarevok. The Time of Troubles and Bhaal's death happen in 1358DR and the game starts 10 years later. In BG it is stated you're 20 years old. So according to retcon Gorion and the others assault the Bhaal temple just after Bhaal dies and priestesses try to rez him. So that makes Charname and and Sarevok, what, 10 years old? Even though in that retcon Bhaalspawn were called babes, meaning very young children. Not to mention Charname's apparent lack of memory about these events is also a sign of being an infant, not 10 frikking years old (what would those priestesses even do with all those Bhaalspawn for 10 years?!).
    This lack of age consistency is apparent in other dates as well. For example, Jaheira's parents castle in Tethyr was sacked in 1347DR (Tethyrian war) when's she was but a young child, so according to this she's in her 20s in the game, but she sure acts as though she's older and mentions being an old Gorion's friend (although this just might mean Harpers as a whole).
    The only explanation to this that I have is that 2nd edition of AD&D starts at 1368DR and that's when the game starts (Same goes for NWN that starts at 1372DR - beginning of 3d edition). The devs just took the official starting year of the 2nd edition as the beginning of the game without thorough date check of other official events mentioned in the game.
  • BladeDancerBladeDancer Member Posts: 477
    edited February 2015
    There's a plot hole that Aramintai didn't address. How can Charname be 20 years old after Bhaal's death during the Time of Troubles in 1358 DR? One thing the Baldur's Gate games always explicitly says is that Bhaal was somehow forewarned of his death and spawned his mortal progeny from the year Charname was born to many decades back to the year when Abazigal was born.

    The official Baldur's Gate novels completely botches up that lore stating that Bhaal spawned his progeny DURING the Time of Troubles, which would make Abby Adrian, Imoen and all other Bhaalspawn 10 or 11 years old, and they are apparently older than that.

    Also, most of us assume that the reason why the cultists in Bhaal's temple are sacrificing the Bhaalspawn is because Bhaal has already died, supporting the flawed theory that he spawned his children during the Time of Troubles. One problem there. We must keep in mind that Bhaal has spawned his progeny decades before he died in the Year of Shadows (1358 DR)!!!

    In my Baldur's Gate fanfictions based on the Enhanced Editions which I post both on DeviantArt and Fanfiction.net under the username SilentGuy2011 (I'm not finished with my BG2EE SoA fan fiction yet), I'm retconning this travesty of a plot hole by hinting that Bhaal's cultists were sacrificing Bhaal's children years before the Time of Troubles, because he has spawned too many for his followers to keep tabs on, so they intend on sacrificing his children until there are only 20 left or less to take part in the fight for the right to ascend the Throne of Bhaal.

    My Charname was born in 1347, the year when the Ten Black Days of Eleint happened (the event when Castle Tethyr was sacked, and young Jaheira's parents who were loyal to the Alemander royal family were killed, and she was not born in 1347, she was a little girl at that time, and who said that women in their middle or late 20's can't act like as if they are older? That's probably the effect of being raised by Druids, learning the importance of balance and all).

    In the part where my Charname discovers Sarevok's journal, he reads an entry (that is non existent in the game) where a year before BG, Sarevok, along with Winski Peorate discover a group of Cyric worshipers who have dedicated their work into learning everything they can find out about the Bhaalspawn, because Cyric himself would obviously be interested in knowing who among Bhaal's many children is likely become Bhaal's successor since he killed Bhaal himself and took over as Lord of Murder.

    Sarevok and Winski capture and interrogate the Cyric cultists for days with the assistance of Tamoko and learn what little they know about the prophecy of the Bhaalspawn. They learn that the city Saradush plays an important part, hinting that Amelyssan and few loyalists of Bhaal planned all that, bringing the few remaining spawn of Bhaal to Saradush to be slaughtered by Yaga-Shura and his army, and that five Bhaalspawn among the 20 (The Five) play important roles and even Gorion's Ward (Charname), although they at first couldn't figure out who or what Gorion's Ward is until Sarevok visited Candlekeep to do further research on whether or not he is a child of Bhaal.
    Post edited by BladeDancer on
  • AramintaiAramintai Member Posts: 232
    edited February 2015
    @BladeDancer Yea, this whole timeline thing is all scrambled in BG and all because of that retcon in TOB (I wish devs didn't touch that subject at all).
  • BladeDancerBladeDancer Member Posts: 477
    @Aramintai Even though they did touch it, it is not a total loss, this plot hole can be retconned by the fans at least.
  • ArcanisArcanis Member Posts: 377
    BladeDancer said:

    @Aramintai Even though they did touch it, it is not a total loss, this plot hole can be retconned by the fans at least.

    Well, I'm looking forward to BGY. Iirc, someone from Beamdog said it would "alter" the trilogy in some way,
    so I'm hoping it will be an attempt to fix some of the more messy plotholes.
    Nonnahswriter said:

    elminster said:

    Nonnahswriter said:

    I actually started a short story surrounding Charname's mother. I find her fascinating as a character when you combine both theories. A lot of people just write it off as "Gorion was lying in his letter," but just think of all the drama that would have gone on if she was both a Harper AND a priestess of Bhaal? :smiley:

    She could have also started out as one and become the other.
    It's funny you should mention that...

    >.>

    <.<</p>
    I'm looking forward to that story =)

    But I have to say, I can't really think of an explanation other than the one I wrote at the beginning or
    that someone lies..

    @elminster That isn't possible afaik. The harpers are a goodish group and Bhaal is evil.
    You can't believe in the harper goals and still get spells from Bhaal (alignment conflict and stuff).
    So she has to be a spy for one of the groups (at least that is how I understand the alignment system
    and alignment restrictions of Clerics).

    ...Sorry for not answering sooner btw >_<

  • elminsterelminster Member, Developer Posts: 16,317
    edited February 2015
    You don't have to be good to be a harper. She could have been a true neutral cleric who turned neutral evil (or some other variation of neutral to evil)
  • ArcanisArcanis Member Posts: 377
    elminster said:

    You don't have to be good to be a harper. She could have been a true neutral cleric who turned neutral evil (or some other variation of neutral to evil)

    Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that she can't have begun as one and then switched sides.
    I'm just saying that you can't believe in both dogmas at once since they are contradictionary.
    Well.. Then again I'm no DM so my perspective my be wrong.

Sign In or Register to comment.

2025 Overhaul Games, a division of Beamdog. © 2025 Hasbro, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Baldur's Gate, Dungeons & Dragons, D&D, Forgotten Realms, Baldur's Gate, Wizards of the Coast and their logos are trademarks of Wizards of the Coast LLC in the U.S.A. and other countries, and are used with permission. Hasbro and its logo are trademarks of Hasbro, Inc. and are used with permission. © 1998 BioWare Corp. All Rights Reserved. BioWare, the BioWare Infinity Engine and the BioWare logo are trademarks of Bioware Corp. Black Isle Studios and the Black Isle Studios logo are trademarks of Interplay Entertainment Corp. Atari and the Atari logo are trademarks owned by Atari Interactive, Inc. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners.