Some people take some convincing. Ok then, here's more proof that it's Ellesime and Irenicus. The female figure is an elf wearing Ellesime's headdress and the lower 'shadow' figure is clearly representing a dark side elf. That would be Irenicus. There is no longer any doubt: it is NOT Waukeen, who is not an elf.

The question was about who is displayed on the logo?
And I am quite sure that Stig79 answered correctly.

Even if the answer was false, the conversation should not become a argument

The artist may have had images of them both, and thus connected them both into one.

It puzzled me for a long time, how is this image related to Amn

I thank you all for assisting

The evidence speaks for itself. He did not.

That minor deity is mentioned over and over and over again in BG2, since she is the patron deity of Amn and Athkatla. The Promenade in the city - the biggest landmark, is named after Waukeen....There are also several temples for Waukeen in the game too.

I did explain the shadowy figure. It is also Waukeen, but a dark version. Which ties into the title itself. Shadows of Amn. Amn, portrayed via Waukeen, in shadows.

So yeah...The designers using the very icon of Amn on the cover of the gamebox for a game called Shadows of Amn...Very bewildering indeed.

Except they didn't.

Irenicus doesn't wear a headdress with feathers. Nor is he female. And he is bald.

Didn't you claim recently that Jaheira, and druids didn't follow a deity in Baldur's Gate too? You went all "lalalala" when presented with evidence then too.


Happy to help.

To me it is Ellesime and Irenicus. The face on the light side clearly belongs to a woman while on the shadow side to a man. Ellesime's headdress also very much resembles the logo.

That would indicate that the game would be about Elesime and Irenicus. Ellesime is passive throughout the whole story, and doesn't even show up until the very end. She is a very minor character, all in all.

She is - and at the same time she isn't. While Ellesime doesn't appear until the end, you do spend the game cleaning up her mess.

Still with Amn in the game-title. The Waukeen symbol almost identical to the cover art. + Waukeen is in the very DNA of Amn and Athkatla. Waukeen is also involved with the Time of Troubles - which is at the core of the BG series.

No, he wears a spiky head (and ears) covering as in the image; there is no proof he is bald and the image does not show a female shadow figure, by the jawline alone he is quite clearly male.

You are so funny. I'm sorry to have burst your little bubble. I'm sorry you *so* want it to be who it clearly isn't. Now just get over it.
Whereas Waukeen is a major player, right? Dude, just drop it.

This all sounds plausible, but there is one issue. The face on the reverse part of the logo is one of a male, not a female.

Yes it can be. The gods take humanoid forms all the time. Waukeen is a god. She isn't human or anything else. She pics the shape she wants. A symbol like that isn't a photo either. It is how the artist figured said goddess might look like. In this case, it looks very, very much like the official symbol of Waukeen - the patron deity of Amn.
Waukeen was a male in the earlier editions\earlier in the Lore. Waukeen became female after the Time of Troubles. So that deity is dual-gendered to begin with.

"Realmslore has gender-switched deities before. Mask was male in AD&D 1E, female in AD&D 2E, male again in 3E. Waukeen was male in 1E, female in 2E, dead in 3E. Silvanus has also been male and has been female. At least various artwork panels depicting gods and goddesses seemed to be gender-confused at times, but they are nonetheless fundamental canon Realmslore.

Some deities seem to have invariably been locked to one gender. Mystra, Selune, Shar, Tyche/Tymora/Beshaba, and Chauntea are always portrayed as female. Tempus, Bane, Talos, Malar, Tyr, Helm, and Torm are always seen as male."

Ellesime doesn't really have anything to do with the title at all either. Given that Suldanessalar is actually in Tethyr, not Amn.

You're completely delusional and it's clear there is no point in further discussion. Have at it...