"I think you know as well as I do which of our philosophies saves more people." The dove's voice is serene and sympathetic, as if Inh's well-being were her top concern right now.

"Yeah, well, I felt like it today.

And, you know. FOR CHAOS!"

The dove shakes her head slowly, and is probably about to say something when the light swirls at two of the empty desks. Everyone already present drops their side conversations and turns their attention to the newcomers.

The light resolves into two figures seated at their respective desks. One is a humanoid, tall, wearing a suit or possibly a robe, and radiating dignity. Every expression or gesture, regardless of the specific motion, tells everyone present that this person is listening and will weigh everything he hears.

(Which is impressive, Inh thinks, since no two of them have the same cultural background and most are different species. He's probably cheating.)

"This court is now in session, in the matter of In re Harrow. All advocates have been briefed on the decedent's lifetime of thoughts and actions and their context."

He turns to the second newly appeared person. An older man, human, barely moving and probably in shock. But capable of answering questions.

"Do you know where you are?"

"The Boneyard. Pharasma?"

"I judge on Her behalf, yes. Does it sound to you like we are speaking in a language you understand, using words you are familiar with, at a speed you can follow?"

"Yes."

"Do you understand that you had, while alive, the capacity to take actions, and that those actions had effects on the world and on other people?"

"Yes."

"Do you understand that the purpose of this court is to determine your alignment and which afterlife you are assigned to?"

Inh looks around the courtroom again during the colloquy. Breathes deeply-- Nirvana has a point, you aren't ever actually ready for this.

The dove, whose name she remembers perfectly well, perched on the desk to her right. An angel, formerly wielding a note pad and pen but now looking attentively at the judge. A great wheel of gears and eyes, gleaming with fire or gemstones depending on the light. Each advocate has a human-size desk, regardless of whether using it means "perched on" or "leaning at." And, studiously ignoring everyone else, a devil.

Harrow himself is still wide-eyed. Everyone here could sort of be a talking head floating in a vacuum, what with being transported to a space that only exists for the one purpose and all, but him especially.

It's fine. It's his first moment really being conscious since he died. He doesn't have the body or sensations he's used to, it's not really surprising he's not moving much. Inh was there once, too. And this doesn't, actually, depend on him very much. Not anymore.

"Yes," he answers the judge, and his voice does not shake.

"If there's no objection, Hell is prepared to speak first." The devil's voice is calm. He ignores the other participants' disgust, anger, or fear, and simply advances his suggestion.

The clockwork sphere answers first. "Axis has no objection."

"Yeah, I do. If he thinks the speaking order is going to help him get this guy damned to Hell somehow, Elysium is against that."

"That's improper, Your Honor. The purpose of this tribunal is to determine which alignment the decedent best fits, based on his actions while alive. It's very well established that the characteristics of each afterlife are not relevant to that decision. It would be even more improper to limit one party's ability to make its case on the grounds that speaking might help it win. Elysium is directly asking the Court to bias itself. I can provide citations for either part of that if it would assist the Court's decision."

"No need, I agree. I don't see how speaking order should affect the outcome or the neutrality of this hearing, and I'm basing this partly on Elysium's acknowledgement that it doesn't either.

You may begin."

"Thank you, Your Honor. Vulpes, speaking for Hell."

He glances down at his notes, then back up and begins his argument.

"No lifetime is ever really simple, but this one is about as close to a single-issue trial as they come. The decedent led a mostly unremarkable life but dedicated most of his career to spell research, particularly trying to invent Benediction. This case will turn on whether this was Good or Evil.

He retired to this after a short adventuring career, through all of which he remained Neutral, and--"

"Objection, multiple objections.

Myra Norn, representing Nirvana. First, this trial is about Harrow's alignment at death. His alignment at any particular time prior is unadjudicated and unknown. In re Arminius, 1609. More fundamentally, we absolutely do not concede that everything else about his life is irrelevant. This court judges people every day whose lives are entirely what Hell might call unremarkable, and they are not all judged Neutral. The things Hell v. Nirvana, 3200, described as the myriad daily actions of participating in a society can easily count toward Good or Law, or a normal life could include rejecting the same things. Regardless of the Benediction issue, which should obviously count in Harrow's favor, there is a perfectly cognizable case for Good just based on his ordinary life."

"Same objection." The whirling ball of gears blinks half its eyes, in a particular pattern that will be transcribed in the record as its name. "But a Benediction spell, had he completed such, would have had dramatically larger effects on the world than one lifetime does. And the decedent knew that and consistently acted in that knowledge. I'd propose we begin with the issue most likely to be dispositive and litigate the small things if there appears to be a need. Especially in light of Hell's concession that it does not base a case on the everyday arguments."

"We could argue based on the number of times he ignored a beggar or lied to a friend if we end up needing to. There's plenty to support a finding of Lawful Evil under In re Marley. Hell's position is that regardless of whether the decedent's everyday life balances to Good or Evil, it is simply dwarfed by his attempts at and progress toward Benediction."

"That is not what you said earlier." The angel's voice rings out and her pen leaps back into her hand.

"Unnael, for Heaven.

-as close to a single issue as they come-

-mostly unremarkable-

-case will turn on-

Arguments not raised are forfeited, in re Campbell, and stating that Hell does not rely on those arguments sounds to me like a waiver."

"Let's start with the Benediction argument since it seems there's agreement it's the primary point in controversy. I'll defer ruling on the forfeiture issue and come back to it if further argument seems like it could affect the outcome."

Which is literally just taking what everyone else said and calling it a decision! Why are they even called judges if they don't!

(Inh at least keeps her scowl internal.)

"Thank you, Your Honor.

It's well settled that some spells have alignments. Lawful spells are Lawful, and Evil spells are Evil. And this is true regardless of the alignment of the person casting it, or even why they're casting it. How much effect an aligned spell has on the alignment of the person casting it is of course contextual, but Hell v. Paizo, 2016 estimated a rule of thumb of casting an aligned spell twice in succession changing the caster's alignment by one step. And Paizo was specifically discussing casting an Evil spell with both Good motivations and Good effects. Here, of course, I'm not going to focus too much on the exact numbers in the rule of thumb because that number is tiny. We're talking about not just a few castings but intentionally researching a new spell specifically for the purpose of having it used as widely as possible. So we're on very solid ground to say that if Benediction is an Evil spell, like the existing Malediction, then developing it is more than Evil enough to be dispositive."

"By which logic, if it's ruled to be Good as it obviously should be then this is a very easy case."

"And he was doing it specifically because he was Good. Malediction sends people straight to an Evil afterlife. That's bad. Harrow wanted to spare people that. Even made some progress at it.

I'm sure we're all very curious for how Mr. Hellguy here is going to argue that's Evil. Just had to say it isn't symmetrical. He's either doing Good for straightforward Good reasons or it's somehow complicated."

"And that's already accounted for by Paizo. It counted as Evil for a wizard to cast Animate Dead to protect the defenseless, not because his motives or the result were Evil but because the spell was. Maybe we need to get into the decedent's motives later, and Hell does not concede they were that pure and simple, but it shouldn't change the outcome. We'd be talking mitigation, not which way the underlying activity points.

As far as reasons why a spell to change someone's afterlife destination is Evil, that's an issue of first impression. To the best of my knowledge or Hell's there has never been a case that turned on that, because the only existing spell for that is Malediction and trials of people who cast that are rarely hard ones. But the first thing to note is that, contrary to Elysium's argument, it's not about which afterlife. We know this because Malediction is an Evil spell, not a Lawful or a Chaotic one. That's true regardless of destination, even when it sends someone Lawful to the Abyss.

But there are other things about bypassing this trial system that can or should be read as Evil, and most of them would apply to Benediction as well. Especially if it was done at scale, which the decedent specifically worked toward. The main highlights are increasing the overall amount of Evil on the mortal plane, frustrating Pharasma's plan, and interference with two different existing compromises between Good and Evil. I have a pocket brief on the topic, if Your Honor would find a written reference useful."

"If you have a written argument we should be permitted to submit one as well. Any procedural option available to one party can be availed of by any."

"Of course, if you have one. Or if you don't, I can just make the argument verbally. It's all good law either way."

"I'll accept it. Copies to the bench and all parties."