Commentary:
Regarding Pazuzu and Arno, the gamebook tries to have its cake and eat it too.
- Pazuzu either is or is not a demon.
- Pazuzu either was or was not summoned.
- Pazuzu either is or is not using Arno as a stooge.
Let's take these point by point.
---
1. Pazuzu either is or is not a demon.
The first time we hear Pazuzu's name (on OUR Carr Delling's path, anyway) is from Garn when he tells his story in the tavern. Garn's exact words are as follows:
This 'Arno' has become Oram's constant companion and advisor. It was he who introduced the cult of Pazuzu among the Knights of Blessed Dyan -- the cult which now threatens to destroy all that is good in Tikandia. Even now, my former colleagues are gathering in the cathedral to honor this demon in another unholy ritual.
Later in that same conversation, Garn says:
My erstwhile comrades have switched their allegiances from Blessed Dyan to the demon Pazuzu and his evil stooge, Arno.
(We’ll come back to the word 'stooge' later.)
From what Garn says, Pazuzu is a demon: in the first quote, Pazuzu == 'this demon' and in the second quote, it is 'the demon Pazuzu'.
It is
possible that Garn didn't know what Pazuzu was until he witnessed the ritual. At that point he may have recognized its physical form or Detected Evil and made a deduction. It is also
possible that Garn is mistaken and only
thinks Pazuzu is a demon.
But if we go down the path that what allied characters tell us is factually wrong, then all certainty evaporates and nothing means anything. Which admittedly would be business as usual for this gamebook series with its Schrödinger's Scepter, quantum Landor, and Arno in two places at once.
---
Our next evidence that Pazuzu is a demon comes from the ritual itself. The triple chant of its name is exactly as specified in the AD&D Monster Manual II entry for the demon Pazuzu.
However…
The gamebook's author is extremely cagey when describing Pazuzu during the cathedral scenes. Across several sections it is described as follows.
- (134) when in statue form: 'an incredible winged creature' … 'an avian monster' … 'the figure's crested head, cruel beak, and taloned feet' …
- (210) as the statue comes to life: 'a horrible apparition emerges from the statue' … 'the winged thing hops from the carved pedestal' … 'the creature' [commands the paladins to listen]... 'the strange creature's announcement' …
- (199) when we get ready confront Arno and Pazuzu: 'The sight of the monstrous wooden idol coming to life' … 'that creature' … '[Arno's] ugly friend' … 'that creature' … 'such a terrible enemy' …
- (34) when we cast our spell: '[Arno's] terrible companion' … 'the hideous creature' … 'the monster called Pazuzu' … 'Fiend!' [shouted by Garn]
- (29) when Garn slaps Dalris: ‘the monster’s mental control’ …
- (112) if we take the Sceptre of Bhukod to face Pazuzu: 'that creature' … 'the winged creature' … 'the monster's bright yellow eyes' … 'the being called "Pazuzu"' …
- (153) when we survive Pazuzu's psionic attack: 'the crested monster's mental power' … 'the monster' …
Even on paths we didn’t take, the word ‘demon’ still isn’t used by the author.
If we foolishly cast Hold Portal instead of Wizard Lock, then at (40), ‘The creature called Pazuzu’ smashes through our weaker spell. ‘The creature’ then taunts us, referring to itself in third person: “Did you think such childish magic would stop Pazuzu, Prince of the Lower Aerial Kingdoms, whose allies include the mightiest dukes and daemons of Hell?”
(‘Daemons’ are the 1e term for yuguloths, the not-devils-not-demons created to fill the Neutral Evil niche.)
The authorial voice refers to Pazuzu as ‘creature’ or ‘monster’ or etc. -- but NEVER as 'demon'. Only the CHARACTERS use the word 'demon', and then only in a few places: once when Garn tells his story about Arno and Pazuzu, and a second time when Carr and Dalris speculate that if Pazuzu is a demon, it would be too powerful for Arno to control.
Going back to passage (40) above: ‘Prince of the Lower Aerial Kingdoms’
is the title for Pazuzu the Demon in the Monster Manual II, and the line about its allies is taken directly from that rulebook. But still the authorial voice will not use the
word 'demon', even when quoting directly from an entry in the MM2 that is under the heading DEMON.
---
In this gamebook, is Pazuzu a demon or not? I say ‘yes’.
Pazuzu has the title (Prince of the Lower Aerial Kingdoms), the rituals (name chanted three times; loves to corrupt paladins), and the allies (daemons and dukes of Hell) that match its writeup in the relevant AD&D gamebook.
I am not sure why Morris Simon is so careful never to use the word 'demon'. He is too good a writer for this to be an accident. I may complain about his wishy-washy language and about some of his moon-logic plots, but at the individual word level, him write goodly. Dr. Simon's use of terms like 'creature' or 'monster' -- instead of 'demon' -- is certainly intentional. But I don't know to what purpose.
---
2. Pazuzu either was or was not summoned.
To get all Clintonian, it depends on your definition of the word 'summoned'.
In the gamebook at (134), when Arno shifts his ritual from whatever he was doing before to the PAZUZU! PAZUZU! PAZUZU! chant, we get this line: "Arno's chant is bringing the statue to life!" Bringing a statue to life is not "summoning" in the AD&D sense.
In the next section (210), "You and Dalris stare wide-eyed through the narrow slit as a horrible apparition emerges from the statue at Arno's command." Again: an apparition that emerges from a statue is not being "summoned" in the AD&D sense; that sounds more like one of the various ghostly entities that infest monster manuals.
When we confront Arno and Pazuzu at (199), "The sight of the monstrous wooden idol coming to life on the altar was terrifying…." Now we're neither summoning nor bringing forth a creature
from a statue; now we're seeing
the statue itself come to life, like an Animate Object spell.
And if we have the Sceptre of Bhukod during that confrontation, then at (112), "You glance from the dark wizard to the creature he summoned from the heart of a wooden idol." Back to bringing Pazuzu out of the wooden idol (or statue) itself.
So that's four sections in which the word 'summoned' doesn't seem to apply in its typical AD&D game sense.
But let's go back to the beginning of the story, when Thayne tells us about how bad things have become in section (68): "Judging by the great evil that has befallen us in recent months, I think [Haslum] may have used a Gate spell
to summon a demon." Later in that same conversation, Thayne says that "The evil that Arno has
summoned to Seagate is more powerful than Archcleric Oram's gods."
That's two instances of the word 'summon' in the AD&D appropriate manner.
(I will pause here to note that the Law of Conservation of ~~Demons~~ Plot Elements makes it improbable that both Haslum and Arno separately 'summoned' separate demons. If Haslum’s scroll of Gate and Arno’s statue both summon Pazuzu, that raises a whole host of other problems, so I'm going to pretend that these are vicious lies spread about Haslum by Arno before Arno killed Haslum -- blaming the dead guy for your own misdeeds is a classic villain behavior. Or more likely, it's a sign that the story was rewritten at some point to shift the 'summoning' from something that Haslum did by mistake or in desperation to something that Arno did on purpose.)
Much later we reach section (192) -- the section that spawned this extremely lengthy discourse -- in which Carr himself says "I have no idea what that thing was, nor how Arno managed to summon it from its statue." I'm not sure whether to count this use of 'summon' as pro- or anti- AD&D proper summon terminology given the clause ‘from its statue’. Let's call it half pro- and half anti-.
Dalris then suggests that Pazuzu "may have summoned himself". Which is
sort of what happens when you do the triple name chant referred to in the AD&D MM2: that chant functions as "the summons" that causes Pazuzu to appear. Although here the word ‘summons’ is being used in the legal meaning, a call to appear at a place.
---
In this game, was Pazuzu summoned or not? I say 'no'. Not in the AD&D rules sense.
Haslum's use of the Gate scroll makes no sense whatsoever: it's out of character for what we know of Haslum and it is redundant with Arno as demon ‘summon’-er. I agree with Dalris that Pazuzu 'summoned' itself: it came in response to the PAZUZU! PAZUZU! PAZUZU! chant. That's what it does in the AD&D
MM2 which Morris Simon follows extremely closely in regards to Pazuzu the Demon.
All the stuff about the statue coming the life, the 'apparition', and so forth -- I chalk up to poetic license.
---
And finally,
3. Pazuzu either is or is not using Arno as a stooge.
The first use of the word 'stooge' is at (154) when Garn tells his story. At that point it is presented as a matter of fact: "My erstwhile comrades have switched their allegiances from Blessed Dyan to the demon Pazuzu and
his evil stooge, Arno."
The next use of the word 'stooge' is when Dalris speculates that Pazuzu 'summoned' itself and is controlling Arno rather than vice versa. Carr then says that would "
make Arno just the stooge of an evil entity so powerful that nothing could stop it."
The definitive statement comes from Pazuzu itself. In section (40) where Carr foolishly casts Hold Portal instead of Wizard Lock, Pazuzu says: "Do you believe that you can best
my loyal servant, Arno, who wears the [REDACTED] crown?"
If you are the loyal servant of a demon lord, you are indeed that demon's stooge. So congratulations, Arno!
---
To sum up, in my opinion:
- Pazuzu either is or is not a demon. → It is.
- Pazuzu either was or was not summoned. → No. It appeared of its own volition.
- Pazuzu either is or is not using Arno as a stooge. → Arno is in fact a stooge.
---
Now that we have that sorted out (heh), where were we?
