I don't care much either. This is why I was so surprised to see people in this thread bringing up "canon" from other products. It's like... we're playing BG3. Made by Larian, in 2023.
Plotholes that come from this particular game? Sure, they need addressing and fixing if possible.
"WOTC said" / "According to that author that writes FR novels..." don't really belong imo. I don't even think that BG1/2 lore belongs here, since that's an old game from an old edition where spells worked differently and people could choose so much there's very little that happened in ALL playthroughs that could be considered "canon". Gorion's ward was of an unspecified sex and race, unknown class, unknown alignment, spells worked differently (because of different edition), etc. That WOTC decided to release some module after seeing how popular BG1 and 2 were really doesn't mean that BG3 needs to stick to whatever crap WOTC wrote. "It's canon" is just a really annoying phrase to me. The only things that should matter are the universe created and presented by Larian in BG3. And there's plenty to nitpick there for those so inclined, there's no need to bring other media into this.
Honestly, answers like "we just don't know" are perfectly acceptable sometimes. Every little detailed being explained not only too resource demanding but also... boring. World needs some mystery. How DID Balduran live so long? Who knows, maybe he was just that cool
