Information said:
What I am objecting to is the use of dualistic theology in a cosmology which purports to establish balance between the extremes of law, chaos, good, and evil. I am not objecting to your use of Jazirian/Ahriman from a theological context, but from a logical one. Sure, if you rigidly adhere to Persian mythology and extrapolate Ahriman as a "Champion of Law," I can see your point, but what I am saying is that the Great Wheel would seem to be better served as a concept if neutral good and neutral evil entities were used as the catalyst, if and only if a dualistic theology must be used at all.
I am just saying that your concept of dualism as derived from Persian dualism, especially with your interpretation as a struggle between Lawful powers, doesn't mesh well with the Great Wheel cosmology, which presumes that all ideological extremities balance each other out by virtue of both their existence and the entities that personify their existence.
It seems logical to me that in a dualistic system predicated upon two opposing Lawful beings, planes like Limbo, Pandemonnium, Ysgard, the Abyss, etc. would most likely not have emerged, subordinate as their resident powers would have been to the (Lawful) Overpowers (Jazirian and Ahriman, in this case) which originally defined (through intention or incident) the cosmology.
While I understand your argument, I'm not so certain your entirely accurate.
The Adversary that
A Guide to Hell offers with Asmodeus does not shatter the concept of the Great Wheel as described in 3ed Manual of the Planes. Nor does the myth Pramas, et al created become mired into a dualistic cosmology.
As I've said before, Lawful alignments will and must have an intellectual center. Law must have a reason to be, and it must be purposeful and rational. Such is not the case with Neutral or Chaotic alignments. Chaotic alignments have no "direction" or unity; those that represent this alignment bully and coerce or exist or whatever, but they aren't interested in helping other people believe or buy into their alignment. Neutral is not interested in a buy in either, but they are interested in promoting their alignment by any means available, although there is very rarely a unity since there are so many ways to promote their given positions. Lawful, on the other hand, does everything methodically and with a unifying goal in mind. For this reason, having over powers or "Prime" representations of good, evil, and neutral make sense for these alignments. It could also explain why the "lackies" these alignments are universally weaker than their compatriots in the Chaotic and Neutral camps: Since they are so unified, they would pose a risk to the "overpower" in charge if they were stronger.
With regards to the creators of the universe and all that... Well, f
A Guide to Hell only deals with the Lawful components of creation, paying no regard to the creation of Sigil, the other planes, or the Prime. In most myths, it is a Lawful force (or forces) that come together to reign in the raw energy of Chaos. The decision to discuss only Ahriman and Jazirian (whom I replaced a long time ago with Ahura Mazda) makes sense from these two regards.
As for
A Guide to Hell promoting dualism, I think you're a little off base. Asmodeus is trapped in Hell. After he and Jazirian seperated, the Cosmos continued to function without them. Many of the struggled between the various pantheons have absolutely nothing to do with them. Even the Blood War has limited meaning to Asmodeus. And, with his entrapment in Hell, Asmodeus' interaction with the Prime is extremely limited, curbing his influence on specific worlds. Is the option there to create a dualistic cosmology? Certainly. But I don't think
A Guide to Hell explictily attempts to do so.
