"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."

"Thank you, Your Honor."

The devil walks around the room, handing a thick sheaf to each opponent and finally the judge. "Along with transcripts of each authority cited, of course."

"This doesn't mention Harrow's name anywhere. Or anything about his life. You had this lying around waiting for a chance to use it, didn't you?"

"Just because Hell doesn't waste its resources on every case doesn't mean we don't have any."

Supplemental brief of Hell in support of a finding that Benediction is Evil, table of contents

I. Introduction: Hell v. Paizo and why this issue is likely dispositive.

II. Courts frequently describe Malediction as Evil because it "upends that sorting which is among the great purposes of Creation by disconnecting planar destination from character." Nirvana v. Boneyard, quoted in in re Vindex, in re Chernsho, and more. The same is true of other ways mortals sometimes interfere with the sorting (selling their souls, sacrificing or consuming souls, some forms of immortality, some creative misuses of the spell Atonement...), all of which count for Evil.

III. The availability of a way to straightforwardly avoid judgment would predictably increase willingness to do Evil among the general population. Especially among the rich or powerful, who have both greater access to new spells and greater reach to do Evil beforehand. Overall effects are unknowable but clearly large and Evil.

IV. There is generally understood to be an order of Pharasma that the existence of Malediction is a concession to Evil, in exchange for other concessions to Good. Breaking that asymmetry would betray the compromise, a political headache this Court is really not equipped to decide on.

V. If permitted at all, Benediction would completely supersede the concept of selling souls, the Evil side of another Pharasma-decreed compromise. As above, courts should decide consistently with existing laws and treaties.

VI. Counterarguments!
-Malediction is Evil because it sends people to Evil afterlives; this does the opposite. There follows a long list of cases where a Chaotic or Lawful caster was later found to have changed alignment despite regularly Maledicting people to the Abyss or Hell, which would be nearly impossible if the destination were dispositive. Or even very relevant.
-This is explicitly in the service of Good and for the purpose of fighting Evil. Even if that were true, it would at most make it less Evil. It would generally not make an Evil act into a Good one. We can argue whether this case is a context-based exception, but that's not relevant to the requested finding that a mortal act messing with the sorting is Evil.
-Screw Pharasma. Hell isn't going to dignify that with a response.

Appendix: Affidavits of spellcraft experts, both mortal and Hellish, opining that if Benediction is possible at all it would likely be a spell at least one circle higher than Malediction. Hell contends that this asymmetry supports its claim that a Benediction spell is not intended to exist.

"This is the most bullshit I've ever seen, congratulations."

Inh finishes first, skimming over the headings while the others verify the citations.

"Obviously Malediction is evil because it sends people to Evil afterlives! The Evil afterlives suck! Ruining someone's eternity is the main effect of casting that spell. Probably it can be Lawful or Chaotic too, but it's not mostly that. Which alignment the afterlives are in is really not the point."

"Agreed, but the fact of changing it is the point.

It's not about the characteristics of the afterlife, either. Malediction is Evil regardless of the target, remember. Otherwise sending someone Neutral Evil to Hell would be an extremely Good act, saving them from an eternity of nonexistence."

"It's really not obvious whether that's any better. Wait no, yes it is. That's not better."

"It is in the opinion of Hell, many Malediction casters, many castees, and Pharasma Herself.

But that's not actually necessary here. We can take your opinion over Pharasma's and the argument still holds. If the alignment of Malediction depended on the characteristics of the afterlife, then sending someone Lawful or Chaotic Evil to Abaddon would be Good because it spares them an eternity of existence. And that's not the case either."

"It can be. Nirvana argues this every time, always with bittersweet but genuine gratefulness for the people they spared. Many of them are aware that it's in many senses better for the target, and in those cases we argue Good intent as well."

"And how often does that work? How many clerics of Evil gods, who regularly cast Malediction, have you managed to get judged Neutral Good? Feel free to cite authority for that."

"In re Strider, 3019. In re Sparrow, 1720. Both held that it is Good to release a soul from a fate it considers worse than nonexistence."

"And both cases dealt with removing an effect that delayed or evaded the proper judgment. We're talking about creating such an effect, which is rather the opposite."

"It's still a Good result. And results are certainly one of the primary relevant factors under in re Leurdorfell. So yes, Maledicting someone to Abaddon can in some circumstances be a Good action. I'll even agree that Maledicting someone to Hell can be, again depending on whether the victim prefers it and whether that's what the caster is prioritizing. But Benediction would almost always have Good results."

"I agree Leurdorfell provides the right framework for how to judge Evil done in pursuit of some greater Good. But what we're arguing about is the threshold question of whether the decedent was doing Evil in the first place. That's more important in this case because that specific action is what the decedent dedicated much of his life to, and it's also the issue that has little existing law."

"In a context with little existing law it makes sense to reason by analogy. Leurdorfell may not be binding on whether an action itself is Good or Evil, but it's still instructive. Even if human interference in afterlife sorting is Evil, a spell that always and inevitably affects the sorting in a way with Good results is clearly not as Evil as one that does it with Evil results.

If we need a wide-scale rule at all on whether Benediction is overall more Good than Evil, the Court could base that ruling on those parts of the Leurdorfell balancing that apply here. Notably, motive and result, which are both Good."

"Hell maintains that Benediction is Evil because it disconnects planar destination from the decedent's character. Nirvana v. Boneyard, and so on. The sorting is one of the most important of Pharasma's interests, even aside from the two different treaties in play here. This Court shouldn't even need to get into a balancing, let alone invent a framework for it or import one from a wholly different area of law.

That said, if Heaven wants to make the argument, we're happy to dispute it on those grounds too."

"Let's start with the argument. If this ends up being the only case on an issue I want a complete record."

"Heaven proposes that, where this Court needs to determine the innate alignment of an action, it should look to the extent possible at the same factors that we would for whether an Evil action served a greater Good. There isn't much binding law on this since there are very few new things that fundamentally count as Good or Evil in their own right. This is just a useful way of weighing amount of Good and Evil, borrowed from a similar type of question.

Those factors include how much Good is achieved, how much harm was caused in seeking it, whether the decedent had in mind a mechanism by with it would be worth it despite that harm, and what alternatives were available.

In the case of a Benediction spell, this list makes it a very easy decision for Good.

Here we have a very direct Good effect: saving people from the Evil afterlives. That's extremely good for the person directly affected, since it spares them torture or destruction or both. And it would nearly always be done for that exact purpose. That's what Harrow anticipated, and it's hard to imagine him being wrong. There's no ambiguity about whether the Good looked for will actually happen, we're literally talking about a spell that sends people to a Good afterlife. There are secondary effects which are also Good-- having more people in the Good afterlives contributes to their scale and overall economy, and in a general sense results in more resources for the causes of Good, not to mention denying Hell or the Abyss a slave. But most importantly, the effect is absolutely dominated by the fact that near enough every single casting is a rescue. That's Good. Extremely Good.

What all this adds up to is saying that even if Benediction were an Evil spell, actually using it would nearly always be a Good action. If the Court is contemplating ruling on the alignment of Benediction in full generality, it should rule that it reliably, predictably does more Good than harm. Using Leudorfell as a guideline, it's a Good spell.

Alternatively, the Court might think it's speculative to reason based on what would "nearly always" be true or what's "hard to imagine." In that case, Your Honor could avoid ruling on the issue at all and say that Harrow in particular had Good motives and actions regardless of the alignment of the spell. Future researchers or casters will have the same issue, but at least then there will be knowable facts in the record regarding context and motivations."

"Saying that all or nearly all castings would be a Good action even if the spell is Evil seems to go against Paizo. Are you asking me to ignore that ruling?"

"No, Your Honor.

Firstly because even if the spell were Evil, almost any use of it would come with effectively built-in mitigation and that mitigation is essential to both what is being done and why. Hell v. Paizo did not say that the Good cause can never outweigh the Evil. It explicitly provided for discretion by the Greatest Magistrate. And If there were a version of Animate Dead that worked only on willing targets and could only be used to defend, I don't think we would have seen the same result.

But also because that ruling doesn't apply here any more than Leudorfell does, and for the same reasons. It's about an action that's already established as Evil, and the issue here is whether to establish that. No ruling on whether Benediction is Good or Evil would be in danger of violating the Paizo rule. Even Hell will acknowledge that."

"Mr. Vulpes, is that true?"

"Yes. Failing to make a determination on the Benediction issue is likely to violate that rule."

"Not what he asked."

"Apologies, Your Honor. Couldn't help myself. Yes, either a finding that Benediction is Good or Evil would comply with that rule for the reasons Heaven described. The relevant portion of Paizo stands only for the weight of an aligned spell, not the alignment.

The problems with Heaven's argument are the rest of it."

"All right. I assume you disagree with Heaven somewhere. Which parts and under what authority?"

"If inventing Benediction is so Evil, why isn't Hell trying to make it happen?"

"Who says we're not? Hell pays people to do Evil all the time. I wouldn't know, though, not my department."

"It's still straightforwardly true that sparing someone an Evil afterlife is a Good act. Heaven is right that even if it were Evil to interfere with Pharasma's trials, the Good and Evil would have to be weighed. And that the Good side of the tradeoff is what the casters would have in mind and certainly what Harrow did."

"But it's not just a spell to deny someone their Evil afterlife, is it. There's one more step."

"No, it's pretty straightforwardly that. A Maledicted soul goes straight to an Evil afterlife upon death, so the reverse would be straight to a Good one."

"Abaddon v. Xar, 2554."

"It's well established that it is not a Good act to kill someone who makes Heaven who might have gone to an Evil afterlife if they had died at some other time. Malediction is a temporary spell and wears off in ten rounds-- it does nothing unless the target also dies within one minute. When we talk about Benediction sending someone to a Good afterlife, we literally mean casting the spell and then killing them."

"We've been talking about people who requested a Benediction. Paid for it. Killing someone at their own request with their own clearly comprehensible reasons in mind isn't murder. Unless the Court agrees with you on the evasion of justice argument, under these circumstances it seems like a prime candidate for not being Evil at all."

"Not where I was going with that.

In re Amleth, 3379, about a decedent's choice to kill for revenge before or after the murderer Atoned to Lawful Good. Amleth established that Xar applies even if the killer has solid reason, in this case the Atonement, to know the person's afterlife destination and a good guess at their normal one. Benedicting someone is similar in effect--though absolutely not in method--to performing an Atonement specifically for the purpose of killing them immediately. This cannot be a Good act."

"Killing them might not be, but casting the Atonement would. Two separate actions, and even if Xar means we can't count the second as Good it doesn't mean the first isn't."

"That's hair-splitting and you know it. We're talking about a spell cast purely to enable a non-Good killing, a spell that has no use at all outside of the killing, it's clearly best considered as a mitigating part of the same act. And under Xar and Amleth, the atonement-plus-killing cannot count as Good on the basis of the victim's afterlife. The same should be true of Benediction."

"Xar only established that it isn't Good. You still haven't said anything pointing toward Evil. I'm not sure a killing is the best way to describe this, even. More of a voluntary permanent Plane Shift."

"That's true.

We're completely fine with a finding that the effect on the Benedicted party doesn't count either way, if you think that's dictated by the case law.

And I'll stop calling it a killing if Good stops calling it a rescue."

"The case law does not stretch as far as Hell claims. Yes, the wording in both cases said that killing someone, even at a time where they went to Heaven and would likely otherwise have been Lawful Evil, could not count toward Good. But in both cases, the actual facts at issue were a murder. It would be perfectly reasonable to limit those holdings to cases where the killing itself would otherwise be Evil. Heaven agrees with Axis that a Benediction is so remote from most events that end a mortal life that calling it a killing at all is misleading.

That establishes that the Court may limit those holdings to the facts at issue there. It can say that sending someone to a Good afterlife is Good under circumstances where ending their mortal life is not Evil. There is more to establish that it should. Aside from common sense, I mean.

It's true that Amleth said killing for vengeance after the Atonement would not count as Good. But it was also clear that murdering him before would be more Evil. This clearly means that the afterlife destination, or at least the actor's reasonable understanding of it, is in fact relevant. This accords with the obvious fact that it is better for someone else to send them to Heaven rather than Hell. And if the act itself is anywhere near as ethically unimpeachable as a Benediction, then we're not talking about "killing someone" at all. It. Is. A. Rescue."

"I'm inclined to agree with Heaven that there is no rule saying consensually sending someone to a Good afterlife can't be Good. Suppose I decide that way. And suppose it's true, as seems likely, that most castings of Benediction would be causing a beneficial effect for others with that result as the primary goal. If so, does that mean I have to rule that the spell is Good or at least not Evil?"

"No, Your Honor. It would only mean we have to return to the primary issue, which is whether Benediction is Evil on grounds other than effect on the target. Hell has advanced several such grounds, most notably that it is Evil for mortals to interfere with Pharasma's sorting of souls. And these have so far still gone unrebutted."

"Nirvana disputes the characterization of that as the primary issue. This is Harrow's trial, not Benediction's. He had an entire life in addition to his work.

Even limiting it to his spell development activities, Harrow was extremely careful to work for Good and not Evil. He set out on this project in the first place because he believed it was where his skills could help the most people. I'm pleased to see the Court agreeing that Benediction is best characterized as a rescue, but just as important as the legal rule is the fact that a rescue is certainly how Harrow saw it.

He never did succeed at developing the spell, of course. But he made progress. When he did, he published every lemma on spellform symmetry or breaking symmetry, hoping it would lead others to progress along the same lines. He hid all findings related to Malediction, just in case it might lead to increased availability of the Evil version of the spell. And he willed the only complete copies of his notes to the paladins for safekeeping.

All of this shows consciousness of the fact that his actions could affect others, and conscientiousness about making sure to do so in the safest and most effective way possible. Harrow was a Good person doing what he believed to be Good because it was Good. That right there is enough to resolve this trial without deciding on the issue Hell wants a precedent for."

"We've been over this. Using Evil magic has an extreme effect on alignment, developing Evil magic must be even more so. That's true regardless of intent, but in fact his intent was to avoid this trial system. Which is exactly the part that Hell contends is Evil."

"Yes, yes, we're all familiar with Paizo. But.

If Benediction were somehow Evil, that's clearly not something Harrow knew. That's not even something we know, Your Honor, there's not yet any established rule at all. An action taken in good faith, having reason to believe it to be permissible, that's allowed. In re Leon, in re Sheppard, in re Fitzharlow. Harrow went to impressive lengths to follow Good. If he made a reasonable mistake in getting it wrong, breaking a rule that did not at the time even exist, he personally is still Good. The Court could decide against Benediction and still in favor of Harrow."

"The rule is that it's Evil for mortals to intervene in Pharasma's judgments. That rule already existed, and has been quoted in many cases cited in Hell's brief. It's why someone selling their own soul is counted as strongly Evil even in a case where the purchasing devil was never able to collect it. In re Constantine, 325. It's why destroying souls is Evil, even if those souls were subject to a fate they might consider worse than nonexistence. Hell v. Abaddon, 1033, 1284, 3239, and honestly quite a few more between the same litigants. It's why undead are anathema to Pharasma, one of the most widely known facts on the mortal plane!

Mortals are not required to have a perfect understanding of Good and Evil in order to be judged, only a general one. But this decedent did in fact know that Pharasma desires a fair judgment of every soul, and indeed as an adventurer he sent a few undead on to this very court while thinking of it as a Good act for that reason. Nirvana can't plead his ignorance now simply because we're talking about a new method of preventing it."

"But if that were true, Atonement would also be Evil. It's a spell cast by mortals, and it does change their alignment in a way we take into account. In re Wololo, 2786. Since it is not Evil, affecting these judgments can't be the problem with Malediction and certainly isn't with Benediction."

"No, because an Atonement is only acknowledging an internal change, in re Roman, 1095. As an act done by the caster, to the extent it even has direct effects it's at most persuasion or evangelism. Does not directly affect these trials, not applicable.

My question is regarding the brief Hell submitted." A cloud of papers forms a nimbus around the orb, one eye fixed on each page. "One of the arguments advanced was that Benediction would undermine the agreement between Good and Evil, by which Evil was authorized to create the spell Malediction. But Hell's own papers referenced experts arguing that if Benediction is possible, it would likely be a higher-circle spell and thus less available. Does that not mean that regardless of any human spell development, the asymmetry remains and the deal is unbroken?"

"I am currently likely to reject that argument on its face. Partly for the reason Axis stated, and primarily because no mortals, including the decedent, were party to that deal. If any Good power is found or alleged to have been improperly intervening, then Hell can take up that cause of action against them directly. As it is I don't see any need to rule on whether or not the existence of this spell violates the deal authorizing Malediction."

"If I may, Your Honor?"

"Proceed."

"Treaties of this sort are not directly binding on this Court, but they are still law. In a case like this one, where there is a separate cause of action, they can be invoked and should be considered even when not given direct effect. Colloquially speaking, it should nudge the Court to err on the side of fulfilling the purpose of the treaty. I agree that if there were a hard rule that Good violated, that would be a separate action."

"To be clear, giving treaties that kind of consideration is a valid position commonly advanced in academic legal circles. Whether it is actually true is an open question, and has been judicially described as "confounding." In re Postal, 2862."

"And whatever the Court's position on that debate, this is not the case to settle it. It is clear that there is no requirement to consider the treaties Hell refers to, let alone sift through argument on whether they are implicated. We do have an entirely separate case of first impression to resolve."

"And what other case should we wait for? Questions with settled answers already have settled answers. The ones breaking new ground, like this, are the ones where guidance from outside authority may be useful. By your logic, the question of whether courts should consider treaties in their decisions will simply remain open."

"Indeed. This may be why it has remained confounding since 2862."

"Not to interrupt you Lawful types, but does any of this... matter?

By my count, you are literally talking through whether to argue to the Court about which way it should resolve an existing argument on what kinds of rules you can argue about when you finally get back to this case. Personally, I'm human, and humans were never meant to count that high.

Even if you all have genes that belong wherever Law comes from."

"Elysium makes a strong point. The impact on the Malediction or soul-sale treaties is certainly not going to make very much difference to this case, and we have plenty of actual actions and motives to look at.  Unless Hell has an argument that it might be dispositive, let's return to actions more specific to the decedent."

"Of course, Your Honor. I'd only ask the Court to keep in mind the effect of the decedent's actions on existing diplomatic agreements when deciding close questions. If the Court believes there are any.

As to the Good and Evil of the decedent specifically, Hell continues to state primarily that he dedicated his entire career to an action that is Evil because it is anathema to Pharasma, and secondarily that developing the spell is Evil because the mere fact of it being available would have substantial Evil effects.

I do feel I'm beginning to repeat myself, but no party has argued that Pharasma approves of dodging Her courts, or even that She does not disapprove. The closest any party has come to a counterargument is mitigation-- that it was done with the Good effects in mind. But Harrow knew, like everyone knows, that avoiding this judgment is forbidden. He acted with "conscious disregard or indifference" toward that Evil, which is an Evil mental state according to too many cases to count.  And he dedicated his life to spreading that Evil as far as possible."

"Good and Evil aren't just what Pharasma says. It's about other people. There are cases for this going back to in re Euthyphro, and it's why the Court opens each trial by confirming that the decedent was aware of the effect on other people. Not whether they're aware that Pharasma has opinions on things. And the effect on other people does count in Harrow's favor here.

This isn't just some defense where he had Good in him deep down. It's a Good act, for Good reasons, and Hell thinks he should be damned for it."

"First of all, Hell objects. We're not "damning" anybody. And Nirvana isn't defending him, and nothing counts in his favor. Or against him, for that matter. Under Downside v. K--"

"Wrong jurisdiction, dicta, and I believe it's been overturned."

"Fine. Under In re Crouse, if you prefer, this Court's duty is to assign each party to the "proper place." It's not an adversarial proceeding, it's not about what they've earned or deserve, and there is no prosecution or defense side. Nirvana is free to attempt arguing that Harrow is Neutral Good, but no party here represents him."

"Yes, I'll remind the advocates that there is no for or against in this trial, only a fitting or unfitting sorting based on his actions and character while alive.

That said, any such misstatements will not affect the judgment."

"Thank you, Your Honor.

Second, Nirvana is once again asserting that there was Good in the decedent's motivation. Hell does not contest that his motives were partly Good. Mixed with Evil, to the extent it matters; he chose this career partly because he accumulated plenty of personal reputation and some material gain, both of which he did value for their own sake. But most importantly, the actual action he chose was Evil. Pharasma does not have opinions, She has decrees. Our task is to identify those decrees and follow them to the best of our ability.

Yes, there was some Good in his motives. And if Hell relied purely on the likely effects, that would be the correct type of counterargument. Even if not enough of one to outweigh the increased number of sold souls as the price plummets and Evil-doers who expect a way out are willing to sell for a much smaller fraction of Hell's permitted budget of intervention in the mortal world, the sharp increase in willingness to do Evil by everyone especially the powerful, and the defunding of half the Good churches. The decedent consciously disregarded those risks.

But most importantly, he embarked on a deliberate attempt to divert more souls away from this tower than anyone has done since Abaddon first raided the River of Souls. While knowing that the judgement is decreed and intervening was forbidden. He's Evil."

"Any increased number of sold souls is first of all purely speculative--"

"Expert declarations in support, from experts affiliated with the churches of Asmodeus and Abadar, as well as the relevant department of Hell."

(Only Axis bothers to accept the offered copy. The pages levitate to form a mosaic ceiling above the rotating wheel, and when it reads the documents it gives the impression of rolling rather a lot of eyes.)

"--and secondly irrelevant. Harrow is not responsible for other, unrelated Evil actions that other people may do. Unlike the Benediction itself, where arranging for the action was his specific goal, here we're talking about choices that other persons had the last clear chance to make or avoid. Even if the perceived risk of selling souls goes down, every other mortal still has the option of not selling.

The existence of Benediction would not cause, force, or encourage potential sellers to make such a deal, nor would it increase the Evil in the act of selling one's soul among those who do it. And he certainly can't be held responsible for Hell's possible response in attempting to purchase more widely."

"Of course he can. The last clear chance doctrine only applies if the later Evil-doer was unable to avoid doing Evil and the decedent had a culpable mental state in creating their situation.

In this particular case, the decedent's mental state regarding Hell's response was choosing not to think about it. And the later Evil-doer is Hell. And Devils, as we all know, do not have free will."

"What, so you can just advertise that if anyone ties their shoes you'll kill a puppy, and suddenly everyone has to go barefoot?

According to Elysium v. Hell, -4004, courts in the exercise of their discretion and the interests of substantial justice look disfavorably on bullshit."

"No, I agree that would be b- would be beyond the limits expressed in your paraphrase of Elysium v. Hell.

But that's not the same thing. Unlike your example, Hell is not planning to change its behavior for the purpose of incentivizing researchers like the decedent. I am simply saying that, if and when his project succeeds, then Hell's current policy of seeking the most souls for its limited purchase budget will obviously mean a larger number of souls at a lower price. It's obvious if you understand decision theory."

"It's still irrelevant. Even if the Court accepted Hell's creative argument regarding its own future choices, the hypothetical people who may later sell their souls definitely do have free will.

Hell is arguing that Harrow's act is Evil because it makes the tradeoff from their point of view appear less extreme. Not even that. Hell is arguing that Harrow's act is Evil because it makes the tradeoff actually be less extreme. It is true that Harrow is helping a large number of people, and that some of them might use his gift for Evil. But reducing the penalty for Evil is not the same as encouraging Evil. Or every merciful king would damn himself with each pardon."

"That can, in fact, be Evil. In re DeMonaco, 4052. Heaven is correct that this is not the normal rule; DeMonaco was a special case. But it was Evil specifically because of the breadth-- rather than forgiving something specific or making some tradeoff for which we can judge the wisdom it was a blanket permission on all Evil. DeMonaco held that it was enough to remove all temporal sanction against Evil. Here, the decedent goes further and attempts to remove it from the afterlife. All Evil would be permissible, for those who can pay."

"That is an argument for Hell's other point, about promoting Evil generally. You were arguing about increased soul sales specifically. Assuming we accept that that would become more common, creating a way out for those who have done so is at least a specific tradeoff. I propose we return to DeMonaco when it is relevant."

"Very well. Suppose the decedent's project bears fruit, and a Benediction is available to all who want it. Rather than the few selling their souls for all the knowledge of the world, or phenomenal cosmic power, entire populations treat it as normal to obtain a bit of gold and a magical effect or two, and simply make certain not to die un-Benedicted. Hell would rejoice, of course, for the number of unlucky gamblers would be more than it can now afford to buy while they are certain. That is an effect, predictable and significant, which must be considered under Leurdorfell.

But Hell also contends that the decedent is responsible for some of the specific Evils. In the world we all foresee, where a soul contract is easily entered and easily escaped, does anyone seriously contend that all the sellers fully understand that decision? Mortals don't, really, understand forever. The young adult who does what everyone around them does. The peasant who thinks themself desperate. Anyone who calls upon Hell's toil-free contact information, disseminated as widely as it can be. Not all of them will truly comprehend what they sell.

And when they don't, then it's a simple case. They were put in a position where they do not understand the danger, by one who does--the decedent. He could have avoided the harm by simply not developing the spell. In such a case, he is partially responsible for their Evil action. That is the ordinary rule of the last clear chance doctrine, in re Mann. The decedent is responsible for the sale of many souls, so many that our estimates had to come from the economists. He's Evil."

"I find that outcome unlikely. Many mortals save their resources to afford a Cure or a Remove Disease in an emergency, or are unable to do even that. Benediction is likely to be at least a fifth-circle spell, and much more difficult to obtain. Certainly unlikely to be reliably within reach on short notice.

The scenarios in which entire populations see selling souls as expected, or even as unremarkable, rest on some very questionable assumptions. More likely, the increase is real and possibly large but not unlimited. And if it is limited to those who understand the trade as well as any mortals ever do, Heaven's argument stands regarding the last clear chance."

"That argument at most applies to each specific soul. In re Phillip Morris held that affecting the total number of people making a choice is Good or Evil separately from responsibility for the specific acts."

"Perhaps. But it does mean Axis will not agree with Hell's interpretation of the last clear chance doctrine in which the decedent may as well have traded in souls himself."

"You might reconsider. It would begin with the privileged, of course, but a world in which many people can obtain gold and magical effects rapidly becomes a world in which spells are not so difficult to obtain after all.

But either way, the availability of Benediction will certainly increase the number of sold souls. And that is still relevant to whether the decedent acted for Good or Evil in developing it."

"Allegedly increase the number of sold souls. As a part of Hell's argument that this could lead to more Evil in general because of reduced deterrence. Anything else on the claimed Evil results? Because as described, that's not nearly enough to rule Harrow's research Evil.

In this case none of the results have actually taken place. We don't know if they ever will, let alone how large they will be. That means the motivation and context are especially important. What we do know is that Harrow was moved by opposition to Evil, by a desire to benefit others, and above all by mercy. All of those are Good, even if Hell's speculation is correct and he was wrong about the outcome.

At this point we aren't even talking about doing Evil while hoping Good might result. We're talking about a disputed action, taken for Good reasons, with both Good and Evil results. That's a similar balancing test except that it does not start from a baseline of Evil to be justified. In re Roman, which Hell cited earlier, applied this to Atonement. That was another fifth-circle spell where Hell argued casting it was Evil because it would lead to everyone with access being more willing to lead an Evil life. Did the increase in Evil ever come to pass? Arguably! The rich and powerful do sometimes lead Evil lives while thinking they can regret it enough to Atone later. But Roman held that it was not relevant. Hell's arguments have already been rejected."

"The reason Atonement is not Evil is that it only officiates an existing change in alignment. It does not directly do anything. Corrupt nobles thinking they can always Atone later is no different from them thinking they can change their alignment some other way--which is true, in re Arminius. And even when doing Evil, they are still limited by always having to think of their actions from a Good perspective if they want to be sure their plan will work. A spell that directly changes afterlife destination would be very different because it means alignment simply ceases to matter."

"Suppose I think this spell would have about the same effect on general willingness to do Evil as Atonement does. Is that enough for a finding that the effect on the world aside from the person it's cast on is Evil?"

"Yes, Your Honor. It would mean the wealthy or privileged--exactly the people with levers of power that affect others--are substantially more likely to use that power in ways that this Court would consider Evil.

Moreover, the specific willingness to sell souls would be substantially higher. First because an Atonement does not affect one who has sold their soul, and second because anyone with the resources to obtain a Benediction and the slightest Chaotic leaning would see it as a free benefit."

"No, Your Honor. A world with Benediction in it is a world where everyone who hears of it unites behind Nirvana's philosophy that anyone can be saved from Hell. It would force even the basest murderer to confront whether they would wish an Evil afterlife on their worst enemy, and when people know themselves better they are far more likely to uncover what Good they can find. It would mean that nobody, anywhere sees themselves as already damned such that they may as well do more Evil. If it is a blow to Good churches through loss of donations, it is far more of a blow to Evil ones as they suddenly learn that even their highest clerics could at any time escape their cruel gods.

I admit that much of this is speculative, just as Hell's argument is. But that is a reason to look to motives, or to what Harrow believed the effects would be, all of which point toward Good. Because he is Good."

"The churches of Asmodeus and Zon-Kuthon would immediately fall apart. Along with all the rest of their institutions in the mortal world. Heaven's mortal allies offer as many Atonements as they can. As Nirvana says, the increased directness and certainty of a Benediction would mean many more accept it, including the clerics."

"And by the same token, many more people would be willing to ask to be a cleric of such a god. Or demon lord, to be fair, we may not have a representative of the Abyss here but I believe all of Evil has this in common. Evil gods would be able to empower clerics selected from whoever is most aligned to them, the way Good gods do, instead of whoever is halfway visible to them and also willing to consider accepting.

If Evil gains the ability to better see and direct its clerics, but loses many of those clerics to Benediction after a lifetime of improved service, that is yet another net gain."

"This Court has absolutely no way of knowing whether this would result in Evil gods gaining more visibility onto their clerics, let alone how much more Evil those clerics would end up doing.

Just as importantly, I don't recall anything in the record suggesting Harrow ever thought of that. And that is not a matter of deliberate indifference-- I don't think any mortal at all knows how much Evil this would result in, if any. It's certainly not something Harrow could have learned. To the extent he did think of Evil clerics in connection with Benediction, it was to think they could be persuaded to forsake their deity and join Good. That is a classic Neutral Good sentiment, and we would be proud to have him."

"He did know that it might inspire a wider variety of people to do Evil. He may not have known the exact nature of the acts, but that hardly matters. He was attempting to issue blanket permits for all Evil. That  counts as Evil under in re DeMonaco if done at a broad scale and in re Richelieu at an individual one."

"Yeah, no.

You could say the same things about Atonement. In fact I think you have. There's already nothing stopping anyone, including clerics of Evil gods, from quitting and turning Good. If that doesn't inspire them to be extra Evil beforehand then I don't see why this would. Sure, maybe it technically works a different way. But that's not how mortals think of it.

Think I'm disagreeing with all of you on this. Anyone who would be worse because Benediction is out there as a backup plan is already doing it because Atonement is. No Evil effect."

"With the exception we've been over, regarding selling their souls? In that case Atonement is certainly not an effective backup plan, as you put it, and Benediction would be. I presume that much at least is undisputed."

"I'm not agreeing to anything with you."

"Heaven will stipulate to that, if Hell will stipulate that among those people Benediction reduces or eliminates the perceived incentive to do Evil to earn favor with the chosen devil or demon lord."

"Done."

"So stipulated, by Hell and Heaven and not Elysium. Anything further?"

"Yes, Your Honor.

In the course of research, the decedent frequently paid an Evil cleric to prepare and cast Malediction. It--"

"On rabbits."

"On rabbits.

This gave the decedent the opportunity to view the spell Malediction in action, and caused the rabbit to be destroyed once on the material plane before sending it to Hell, where it was destroyed even more unpleasantly.

I bring this up because Malediction is an Evil spell, and paying another to do an Evil act is equivalent to performing the act oneself."

"On rabbits.

Of course, by your preferred standard, this isn't an Evil act because Pharasma does not judge rabbits. They would otherwise not have an afterlife at all, and sending them to one does not interfere with any trial."

"Correct. Hell does not contend that Malediction is intrinsically Evil in these circumstances, any more than if it had been prepared but not cast, or cast unsuccessfully on a rock. Both of which the decedent did also hire, both for research purposes.

But by some other theories it would. For instance, if Malediction is viewed as aligning oneself with the relevant plane, then that alignment occurs regardless of the target. I want to know if in the case at bar, Good is abandoning theories that would make Benediction intrinsically Good or if it concedes that Maledicting a rabbit is some degree of Evil."

"I don't think that concession would substantially affect the result. It was a rabbit. Animals do not receive petitioner bodies and do not endure an eternity of suffering, so Maledicting one does not cause substantially more Evil than the common mortal practice of eating them. Which does not, without more, cause someone to be Evil. Asmodeus v. Erastil, undated."

"Hell is simply asking for a concession that if we are basing the determination primarily on consequences, the act of Maledicting rabbits does weigh on the scale at all.

After all, sending a victim to a plane that is universally on fire is substantially worse than the "conditions better than natural" contemplated in the Erastil decision. Under In re Vick, unnecessary harm to animals is generally Evil, after all."

"Fine. Agreed. Killing a rabbit in a way that causes it to die twice instead of once is in fact bad. But if we want to get into how bad we'd need to talk about context, and whether it was or was not necessary, and exactly how much Good and Evil resulted, all that. And it's what? Three, four instances of animal testing? Not to endorse it or anything, but I really don't see that making the difference for this guy. A minute ago we were talking about the fate of the world!"

"Can I assume the rest of Good agrees with Elysium on this?"

"Broadly yes, including the objections. And we reserve the right to emphasize those arguments further or add new ones depending on what your trick is."

"No trick.

Because while Heaven is correct that Maledicted animals do not receive petitioner bodies and cannot survive in the Outer Planes, the decedent was one of the large majority of mortals who do not know that. He took the risk of sending a victim to Hell for a genuine eternity. And that is Evil, according to the way Heaven, Elysium, and now Nirvana claim to understand Malediction."

"Even though that harm never happened."

"It's some amount Evil just to set events in motion that could lead to a specific, known harm even if events turn out differently. Any different rule would simply be moral luck. In re Kiyamvir, twenty-one minutes ago."

"The decedent at issue in Kiyamvir was not Evil, and would have been if the risk he took had in fact killed anyone. That difference matters.

Harrow's risk of Evil was taken in the pursuit of Good. And the Evil was mitigated by confirming it wasn't known what would happen to the animal and by scrying it afterward so that if he needed another test he would know the answer. Paizo estimated two castings of an Evil spell in succession to change someone's alignment. This is a fraction of a fraction. It wouldn't make him Evil if weighed against his normal life, let alone against his extremely Good work."

"It did occur to him to scry one of his victims, eventually. That does not exactly make him look like a saint.

And Paizo was talking about any Evil spell, in full generality. This one isn't exactly Infernal Healing. It's Malediction. By the test able counsel from Good think we should apply, that's potentially an infinite amount of Evil."

"Not infinite. Only as long as Hell is a dominion of torment."

"Potentially infinite. My point remains that if His Honor chooses to judge by consequences rather than rules, by what outcomes could reasonably be foreseen by a person exercising ordinary care, and further agrees with Good that Malediction is Evil because of the unpleasantness of the destination, then this one act was extremely Evil. And the decedent's multiple instances of it are more than enough to be defining."

"That is wrong on a genuinely impressive number of levels. It misquotes Paizo, for one. Multiple instances "in succession," which this was not.

More fundamentally. A person of ordinary care would assume, as Harrow did, that Hell does not torture rabbits because no one has ever heard of Hell torturing a rabbit.  He simply took this to mean there was a known answer. He was arguably negligent, but certainly not culpably so. This is a very context-dependent argument. If counsel from Hell insists on arguing it then we can, but even by Paizo's extremely low bar, this small number of castings would not take Harrow from Good to Evil. And as Elysium says, a minute ago we were talking about the fate of the world."

"Yes, many have done great Evil in the pursuit of some cause they believed was larger. And repeatedly ordering another to cast Malediction is certainly enough to take someone from Neutral to Evil. It is far from established that the decedent was otherwise Good."

"I will take this under advisement, and tentatively intend to count it as an Evil act but less so than a Malediction cast on a being with a soul. In the meantime, this case does seem more likely to turn on the decedent's research activities. Any objections?"

"No objection, Your Honor, but Hell requests a clarification that it was an Evil act solely or primarily because Malediction is an Evil spell. It remains Hell's position that Malediction is Evil because it interrupts Pharasma's judgment. Because an animal subject does not properly have an eternal fate of any alignment, any potential grounds based on consequences do not apply here."

"That position implies Harrow's act was not Evil at all."

"Hell would be willing to stipulate to that. A slight departure from Paizo, but in an unusual enough circumstance that the Court need not consider itself bound."

"No stipulation. Heaven instead disputes the claim that mortals affecting the sorting is inherently Evil, and urges the Court not to make the requested change.

The Court's proposed ruling as stated is agreeable. In fact, there is precedent that sending a rabbit to Hell temporarily, without full knowledge and under circumstances that could result in Good, explicitly should not be sufficient to change how the Judge views their alignment. 2334, in re Easter."

"Hearing no objections from any party, I'm going to consider the decedent's animal testing to be Evil for one reason or another but not commensurately so with an ordinary Malediction.

Before we move to final statements. Harrow. Would you like to speak on your own account?

"I don't- I don't know what you need to hear.

Is it true? About more people getting damned? I left my research with the Order, I can ask them to destroy it, there's a password..."

"Whether the completion of your research would result in more people being sorted to Evil afterlives or fewer is a question of some concern to this Court. But in either case, this trial is about your actions while alive. Any later actions, such as use of the password, would be an intervention by your assigned afterlife and would be outside my jurisdiction."

"I never thought I might be sending more people to Hell. I wanted to avoid that. That was the point. And, I know Mr.- the advocate from Hell might be lying, he's a devil and that's what they do,"

"Objection!"

"Overruled, he can speak. There's no jury here to prejudice."

Harrow hears the exchange as background noise. It's more than enough to break the flow of his sentences, but hardly more than he had been managing on his own.

"If it's true that's bad. I'd wish I'd never tried. I can try to think of times I was acting Good if that would help, Your Honor, they say it helps even though you already know it all, but. Everything else. Seems kind of unimportant, if I got a lot of people damned."

He still shakes when he moves, but he squares his shoulders and looks the angel in the eye. "Leaves of falling gold. If it's true and you need to destroy it, tell the Order "leaves of...""

"Out of an abundance of caution, the Court will remind all advocates that this trial is not a vector for information-gathering about the mortal world, and per standard rules you are all prohibited from making use of that information until such time as it is learned from an independent source."

"Can I object to that? Um, Your Honor?

I decided while alive that I wanted to trust Lawful Good with what happens to my research, I think they should be allowed to use the password even if..."

"You are not a party in this action, but I will listen and may respond.

In this case I'm not releasing Heaven from the rule for several reasons. Foremost among them is that one of Pharasma's objects in designing the sorting process is to observe what each alignment is able to do when it has a dedicated society and plane. Your knowledge, like your capabilities, should be used in and from the plane of your own alignment. Second, mortal judgments about which alignment to trust do not carry more weight than their beliefs about their own alignment. They can be and sometimes are misled about the true nature of Law or Good. Relatedly, you did not entrust your secrets to Lawful Good as a category. You entrusted them to a specific paladin order about which you had information suggesting reliability of judgment. For these reasons, in addition to long precedent,I will not alter the rule limiting use of information disclosed here.

For what it is worth, Harrow, you never believed you needed to use this password while alive. If you were correct in your decision of where to place your secrets, you may be able to continue trusting them into the future."

"But they think their job is to make sure it doesn't get misused to spread Malediction! They don't know I might be getting people damned if this works, I don't think anyone knows that! They need to be warned..."

"Harrow, they probably don't need to be warned. Mr. Vulpes's horror stories are extremely selective and very unlikely to come true. You did Good work.

I'd like to note that every single word Harrow just said was rooted in concern for others and trying to avoid Evil outcomes. Including the password, which he set up while alive and explicitly does protect against Evil outcomes beyond the ones he specifically foresaw. While a decedent's words before this Court are not themselves the substance being judged, they are often demonstrative of their actions or perspectives in life, in re Tomlinson, and in this case the record reflects that everything Harrow did was for exactly those reasons. Good reasons.

Nirvana also objects to any ruling based on Hell's predictions of dire consequences. When the decedent asked the Court directly whether it was true, the Court did not have an answer. And was correct not to, because we don't know. Nobody knows. We cannot base such a weighty decision on unforeseen Evil consequences when those consequences are speculation."

"It is not speculative if it's based on expert opinion using methods resting on a reliable foundation. Tarot Readers Ass'n v. Merrell Dow, 2786. The affidavits establishing the reasoning are before the Court. The soul sales are the most undeniable-- Hell will absolutely receive more souls by that means than it does now, and it will have Harrow to thank.

And I must remind you that Benediction was never completed. Any consequences at all are either prediction or speculation, and no other party has attempted expert opinion. Would you forego all argument that the consequences are Good?"

"Yes! If you're offering, Nirvana will absolutely stipulate to ignoring all Good and Evil consequences on the grounds that we don't know if there are any, and look entirely to Harrow's motives and intent. Which, as he just very effectively demonstrated, are extremely Good."

"Before we discuss any such stipulation.

Your Honor, may I ask the decedent some brief questions?"

"That is not ordinarily part of the proceedings. You may suggest questions for me to ask."

"Then I'd request that the Court ask the decedent about his motivations in interfering with Pharasma's judgments. In particular, I'd ask that the Court question the decedent on whether he recalls stating that "Pharasma has no business damning anyone." Finally, to explain whether he imagined using Benediction on himself, if it were to exist in time, and what he was thinking when considering it."

"Very well.

Harrow, please answer regarding whether you considered yourself to be challenging Pharasma's judgments. In hearing your testimony, this Court is primarily concerned with your decisions and motivations."

"I do remember saying that. And I, uh, may have used stronger language." Harrow winces. I wish she'd go to Hell herself, he doesn't bother quoting. Everyone in this room already knows he said it.

"I remember thinking that Pharasma was doing Evil, hurting people that is, every time she sent someone to an afterlife they wouldn't have picked. Mostly because of all the torture, but even sending someone to Heaven whose family is in Axis. And I don't know if she just doesn't understand what it means to send someone to an eternity of Hell, or if she does and she wants them to be hurting, like Asmodeus does.

I did think about using Benediction on myself. Who wouldn't? Not- not very seriously. I didn't expect to have it in time, and didn't expect to need it anyway. I was never Evil. It was just, why take the chance if you don't have to?"

"So it's fair to say your opinions of Pharasma's judgments were that "any god who would do that doesn't deserve to stay out of Hell herself" and that you enjoyed the fact that your work was "spitting in Her eye?" And that in your individual case you considered judgment a risk you'd prefer not to take?"

"I- yes, I did say those things. I was never sure, still not really sure, if that was my endorsed opinion and reason for trying. As opposed to just how I felt sometimes. But I did say that."

"Your Honor, Nirvana contends that this demonstrates more than ever that Harrow is Good."

"With all due respect, this I gotta hear."

"Are the parties are prepared to make concluding statements? If there are no further issues we need to return to, we can begin with Nirvana."

Myra hops up to perch on the back of her chair. There's no need to take a deep breath before a speech, especially when one is both dead and a bird.

"Of course, Your Honor.

Nirvana believes we do need to return to the question of Harrow's alignment outside of his work on Benediction. Not everything we've discussed was of world-changing scope, so it's important to note that his everyday life was Good. His neighbors knew him as generous with his wealth, he would always step in to resolve a fight between strangers, and when a friend needed help he'd come immediately and wouldn't ask questions. Hell may claim he was Neutral during his time as an adventurer, but he saw his job as fighting Evil or dangerous creatures and protecting the innocent, and he followed through on that. We've had relatively little dispute about Harrow's life in general, but it's important to note that in every legal issue we argue, it's about a disputed action by an otherwise Good man.

And attempting to save others from Hell is absolutely a Good act.

The statements the Court asked Harrow about were to the effect that if Pharasma sends people to Hell, then Pharasma is in error. He believed, out of concern for his mortal fellows, that they should not be subjected to the Abyss, or to Abaddon, and certainly not to Hell.This is an extremely common Good belief. On behalf of Nirvana, I can confidently state that he was right. This should not be controversial! Pharasma does not claim to be Good. This Court has acknowledged that in in re Euthyphro and every case that cites it. Pharasma does not even claim to understand Good, not to Her own satisfaction; in several respects that is why we are here. As the Court correctly quoted, one of the objects of the sorting process is to observe each alignment in its own dedicated afterlife plane full of people who best fit that alignment. An Evil plane containing people like Harrow, people always and primarily moved by the welfare of others, that would be a bad fit. This Court's duty is to sort Harrow to a destination that matches his character. And there are whole planes full of people more Good than Pharasma. Harrow belongs in an afterlife designated for people with his compassion. He belongs with Good.

Everything about the sociological effects of Benediction, as likely or as speculative as they may be, is a sideshow. This is about Harrow. It is extremely obvious from what decisions he made and how he made them that he was and is Good. If some of his predictions were wrong, if he truly did serve Evil in life, Your Honor heard him yourself. He would regret ever trying to develop the spell. But if he was wrong about his predictions or even if he was insufficiently careful when making them, then so be it. The decision he thought he was making was clearly Good. This Court should judge character, not moral luck. In re Kiyamvir cuts both ways.

But if the Court does desire to analyze that sideshow, it will not change the outcome. The effects too are Good. Benediction's existence will remind everyone that there is hope and mercy, that nobody is so far gone that they might as well go further. And every person rescued is one less person subjected to pain and torment or to destruction. In life Harrow saved many from harm. That is very correctly counted as Good. The same is true of Benediction. It will do Good in precisely the way he hoped.

There may indeed be negative effects as well. But Harrow took pains to minimize those. Every risk he thought of, and some that he didn't. It is not an easy thing for anyone to limit their cleverest work just in case it could do harm. In re Altman, 2625. Doing it anyway, for the purpose of protecting others, shows consciousness of and desire for Good even at personal cost."

She ends her address to the judge and smiles at Harrow.

"Axis largely agrees." The whirling ball of gears orients itself facing Myra, before turning back to the judge.

"With several additions. First, although the decedent rarely faced Law-related dilemmas, his everyday life was Lawful. He followed the laws of each jurisdiction he entered, he strove for consistency in his own decisions and beliefs, and when he did need to hide an important secret after his own death he did so by finding a trustworthy partnership and availing himself of existing rules. Each of these is Lawful, under in re Hobbes, in re Noitilov, and in re Twain, respectively.

As for the Benediction issue, I will note that Nirvana has not argued that Benediction is a Good-aligned spell. The argument was for the Goodness of the decedent's action in inventing it. And this is correct. This Court should not rule on wide-reaching issues if the question presented can be resolved on more ordinary grounds. In re Ashwander, 347. Regardless of the alignment of Benediction, the decedent himself never cast it. This difference matters because if such a sweeping holding were appropriate here, Hell is correct that the decedent would be partially responsible for a great number of strongly aligned spells and it would overwhelm questions about his individual characteristics. But because that is not before the Court, the only matter at issue here is his actions in life. His choice to attempt to develop Benediction is Good for the reasons Nirvana articulated.

That said, Nirvana's description of the decedent's life is not necessarily complete. In every adventurer's case we litigate the wrongs often committed when doing violence with little oversight. And Hell has already alluded to the decedent's conduct as a man of means, citing in re Marley for the implication he was miserly. Axis will not press this issue except to note that it does believe the decedent's conduct in both those arenas did more Good than harm.

However. The Good delegates have acknowledged that the decedent's animal testing was in fact Evil. And the decedent knew this, though he did not know the degree. Under in re Pascal, actions that carry a realistic chance of unbounded harm are strongly Evil. Axis believes that it would be fair to apply the Paizo rule of thumb here. Many magistrates disregard this rule as being too quick to change an alignment merely for casting a spell, but those concerns are not present when the spell at issue is a significant Evil action. Here there were three occasions on which the decedent risked causing a potentially-infinite amount of suffering, prior to the scry in which he confirmed it was finite. Under Paizo, three is likely sufficient to make an otherwise Good soul Neutral. But under the same rule, three such acts when separated by months or years would generally not make an otherwise Neutral soul Evil.

Thus: Lawful Neutral. This is an area of broad judicial discretion. But the rules as written suggest that this series of sins would leave the decedent Neutral regardless of whether his other actions added up to Good or Neutral. If the Court does not rule on any overwhelming implications of Benediction--issues which Axis believes will not arise until the first trial of an actual caster--then it should follow Paizo. Limiting the decision to the decedent's actions and motivations in life, the Court is presented with a generally Good life, marred by a handful of major sins, and a rule of law recommending a finding of Neutrality. Because of the rabbits."

"Heaven agrees with Axis's reasoning for Law." Unnael stands and her every word is a declaration. "And would add that if the Court does think it appropriate to analyze the Benediction issue, this will necessitate a finding for Good.

Benediction will, as Harrow did dare to expect, cripple many of the forces of organized Evil on the mortal plane. It will rescue all those subject to a soul contract at the time it becomes available, as those almost invariably do possess the access and willingness to seek out the escape, rendering the entire exchange a clear loss for Hell. Or Hell might, if it considers it a lesser sacrifice, simply stop soliciting such sales as soon as it thinks a successor is within one lifetime of completing Harrow's work. This too would deprive Evil of a tool it values highly.

The gods of Evil will be even worse off. Asmodeus's entire philosophy is that He and Hell are inescapable and the best His followers can seek is to be a good slave. As soon as there is a clear and accessible escape, His entire church will know this for a lie. Will Urgathoa even bother choosing clerics, if She cannot consume their souls when they reach Abaddon? Will Zon-Kuthon be able to control his people, when his threats are empty? The demon lords of the Abyss are well known to be dubiously reliable with their promises of advancement to the faithful, but with Benediction can they even make the offer? When this spell exists, Heaven's mortal allies will trumpet it to all the hopeless. Those few who serve Evil knowingly, some of its most valued servants, will flock to forsake it.

Heaven can and does thank Harrow for his service in breaking the power of Evil.

But all that shows is that Harrow is Good for deciding to develop the spell. Benediction itself is also Good. That is not a hard question.

First, the Court has already found it persuasive that the primary purpose of every casting is the effect of helping another. As Elysium has argued, this is either straightforwardly Good for Good reasons or it is somehow complicated. And it is not complicated.

Hell's argument that Benediction is anathema to Pharasma is spurious. Yes, it does interfere with this sorting. But that does not make it Evil. There have been trials of paladins or other adventurers who foray into Hell, and sometimes they rescue captives. That too brings the rescued to a plane that does not match their adjudged character. If anything, that frustrates Pharasma's goal more, because it rescues people who have already been determined to be Evil rather than people who only might be. But no court has held that this makes it an Evil act. If this Court were to rule that Benediction is Evil because it evades judgement, it would need to rule the same about paladins acting on behalf of Heaven against Hell. That would be as unsupported as it is facially implausible.

Heaven does not take a position on whether the Court should determine the alignment of Benediction. But if it does, the result it clear. Benediction is Good, and Harrow is Good.

Heaven's one point of explicit disagreement with Axis is the effect of the Maledictions he purchased. Those are Evil spells and did have some harmful effects. But even by the rule set forth by Paizo, proximity in time is a strongly weighted factor. These were separated by years, years in which Harrow continued to live a life dedicated to pursuing what he believed to be Good. It is further mitigated by the Good purpose that Harrow had in mind at the time, and by the fact that the most substantial harm risked did not come to pass. Paizo suggests it takes multiple spells to make a Good soul Neutral, and by Axis's count there are only three relevant. The Court has broad discretion on this question. In light of the extensive mitigation present here, far beyond any other Malediction, the Court should use that discretion to find that it does not make Harrow Neutral. In life he did the work of Lawful Good, and Heaven would be proud to call him one of us."

Vulpes strides into the well encircled by the desks. "If I may, Your Honor? Those arguments contained several misstatements in need of clarification."

He gets a nod and begins, gesturing widely with one clawed hand flaring toward the gem-encrusted wheel.

"First, Axis is mistaken about the alignment of Benediction not being before the Court. Axis's proposed rule that it is not before the Court until the first trial of an actual caster must be rejected. It is well established that soliciting another to perform an Evil act is substantively the same as doing it oneself. Here, the decedent did not pay other casters, but he went to far more extreme lengths in an effort to cause it. Treat it the same as any other inchoate action: we can call it attempted because he engaged in conduct that would constitute the action if he succeeded, or we can call it conspiracy because he worked with others toward the object of completing the conduct, but either way he is responsible for Benediction as if he had cast it. Less responsible, perhaps, but in light of the intended scope and the sheer number of people he intended to Benedict, that makes little difference. This goes double because Paizo, whatever limits on that rule courts choose to apply, still stands for the proposition that it takes remarkably few instances of an aligned spell to affect outcome.

Is Benediction Good? Then so is Harrow. Is it Evil? So is he. In either case, that ruling will be necessary to the decision. Ashwander does indeed recommend that the Court should avoid far-reaching grounds when a simpler decision will do, but it does not authorize ignoring squarely presented issues simply because they are important. This is such a case."

He pauses and leans back against his own desk. Glances around the others forming the three walls of the well, while he leans on the fourth.

"If we had any observers not familiar with our law, they might be convinced by the claim that rescuing someone from Hell is a Good act. To that I say first that all the decedent's work did in fact serve Evil, and will do so more when it is completed, and second that the law acknowledges that rather than merely compelling it.

To begin, all Heaven's predictions are baseless and speculative. This Court is limited to the facts before it. We're all familiar with the decedent's thoughts and actions, and to some extent the surrounding context, but nothing in the record suggests how the Good churches or nations would react to the existence of Benediction. Certainly there is no support for the statement that Evil polities would collapse. Hell moves to strike that entire portion of Heaven's argument as speculation not supported by the record.

The only evidence submitted on that subject is Hell's expert affidavits. Those opine the exact opposite. Heaven contends that Evil deities will no longer benefit from choosing clerics, but that is utterly false. My own master, Asmodeus, in addition to being Lord of Hell and several other things, is god of devious contracts. A mortal who wishes to ask Him to empower them because they believe there is an escape clause is in some ways thinking more along His lines than someone who seeks a higher place in the tyranny.  This of course means that Asmodeus can see better through more of His mortals' eyes, can make better use of them, and so on. Right now, such people are not available to Him. His pool of potential clerics is limited to the best matches among those who are also already resigned to Hell. With the existence of Benediction, many more will be willing to ask. I suspect something similar is true of other Evil deities, but as only Hell has sent a delegate and expert affidavits I must acknowledge that my suspicion is not in the record. Regardless, Asmodeus in particular will be vastly better off even if some of His favored minions escape Him.

And of course, the prospect of selling one's soul will become a vastly different proposition. One much more favorable for Evil. Wider reach at a much lower cost, and if Hell only claims those who die at a time not of their choosing, the expert testimony does expect that would be most of them.

Good's mortal forces will face the opposite effect. They are largely funded by the wealthy trying to change their alignment in fear of this Court. When they can simply avoid judgment at a time of their choosing, that ends. So too does any other Good that mortals do for the sake of remaining Good. Recall the decedent's own words-- of course he considered avoiding judgment, who wouldn't. Because why take the risk. The knowledge of Pharasma's judgment, combined with the popular belief that Evil afterlives are best avoided, is a strong force for Good. The decedent will nullify that. In particular he will nullify it among the powerful, heralding a new age of oppression and tyranny.

For all these reasons, Hell fervently hopes in the name of Evil that Benediction does come to exist."

Fiery eyes soften and turn toward the subject. Vulpes speaks almost conversationally.

"And Harrow, since this may or may not be the end of our acquaintance, thank you for your service."

"Of course, Harrow's services to Hell represent reasons why trying to develop Benediction is Evil. Hell's position is that the spell itself is also Evil, and that this predominates.

In this case, we've had relatively few comparisons to the actual facts of existing cases. Partly this is because it's an issue of first impression with little law to rely on, but partly it's a failure of advocacy which Hell is happy to remedy.

Heaven is correct that no case has litigated whether a paladin's act of removing a soul from Hell is Evil because it frustrates Pharasma's goals. This is not surprising: the sort of adventurer who could feasibly invade Hell has almost certainly performed many morally charged acts, enough that one debatable one will not make the difference. And the sort of paladin who actually does that is not likely to be a closely fought case. If Your Honor desires an answer, yes, the act of removing a soul from its assigned afterlife is in fact Evil, subject to mitigation based on purpose and context.

The court discussed a similar question in in re Alighieri, 1300. A mortal escorted through Hell at first felt pity for the souls he observed, gradually lost that pity, and never in fact attempted to aid them. Nirvana argued successfully, over Hell's objection, that this was Good. The souls were where they belonged and Alighieri's acknowledgement of this counted toward Good. Conversely, someone who does the opposite is doing Evil.

We see similar reasoning in the well-known case of Erecura. While that was not a holding by this Court, it was a judgment rendered by Pharasma Herself and shows directly how She assigns alignment. "It is appointed to mortals to die once, plus or minus a resurrection here and there, and after that to face judgment." Unknown, 927. Erecura, of course, stole from Pharasma the secret of true immortality. This act inevitably interferes with the appointed sorting. Pharasma chose which plane is the "proper place" best fitting that act, and Pharasma chose to send Erecura to Hell.

Pharasma's edict is clear: it is Evil to interfere with these judgments. If a party of mortal adventurers appeared right now and seized the decedent, this would at their own eventual trials count in favor of Evil. Benediction is the same: it evades judgment entirely and arrogates to the mortal the decision of which plane should be their destination.

To rebut Good's arguments, the question certainly does not turn on the pleasantness or otherwise of the afterlife in question. Abaddon frequently attempts to seize and devour souls bound for other afterlives, and this is Evil. It is Evil even if those souls are otherwise bound for the Abyss or Hell and would prefer nonexistence. But the closest analogy is in the buy witch-soul token line of cases. Each of those cases refers to a mortal who sought, for purposes of rescue and mercy, to obtain title to the soul of a friend who had sold theirs to Hell for power. Some of them succeeded. The courts near-unanimously found that this was Evil. Despite the decedents' Good motivations, the act itself was still engaging in the soul trade. And engaging in the soul trade is Evil, in large part because it interferes with the sorting of souls. For the same reasons, Benediction is Evil. It is exactly the kind of thing that Pharasma will not stand for, and that the case of Erecura demonstrates She considers Evil."

Inh looks around the courtroom and stares at Vulpes until he takes his seat. She doesn't get up from her own. "Guess it's my turn."

"Okay. Fine. I can buy that Pharasma is against this. Not proven, but believable. Elysium's argument is as follows: so what.

The story of Erecura is non-precedential. By the time Pharasma decided where to send her, she was already a demigod, not a mortal who would get judged by this Court. And she's ruling as Queen of Dis now, not nameless victim number whatever. Do those differences matter? Maybe! There's no record from that case, no reasoning that we can follow for whether or not it actually means that Pharasma thinks people shouldn't mess with trials. But again: even so, so what.

Same response for Alighieri. That guy had a long, complex, interesting life. Same reason Hell says those adventurers don't really count. And there were plenty of reasons why Alighieri ended up in Heaven. Hell is flagging one particular thing that Nirvana said was Good from a certain point of view-- nothing in that case said it was an especially important thing, it didn't determine the outcome, it's basically dicta. And again: either way, so what.

Because all this points toward is what Pharasma thinks. Pharasma doesn't have edicts, She has opinions. If She wanted an actual law saying the thing Hell is arguing for, She could have made one. She didn't, and common sense says sorting mortals into the aesthetically matching buckets isn't a moral question at all. I mean, sending them to eternal torture is. But the proper matching-ness is ethically whatever. This Court does it, but this Court isn't aiming for Good.

If you want case law, you can have case law. In re Earendil and in re Nimmer, two of what are known in Elysium as the "fuck Pharasma" cases, both held that disrespecting or even flouting divine opinions isn't per se Evil. Nimmer is especially relevant here. When alive, Nimmer wound up arguing a case like this one directly to the Supreme Judge for some reason. While doing that, he disobeyed Her direct order, in a disrespectful way I might add, and at his own trial Evil tried to make some hay out of that. Didn't work. There's a statue of him in Elysium now. Has the word "FUCK" carved on the base. Bottom-line Pharasma, She might have some legitimate authority, but that's all it is. Authority.

In re Earendil helps too. Disobey a direct order if you feel like it, and if it's for a good enough reason the authorities can just deal. Here, there isn't even a direct order. All he's flouting is a divine opinion that isn't even a morally charged one."

"Heaven agrees that if the Court does choose to rule on the alignment of Benediction and does not consider it Good--"

"Say the words."

"..."

"The words of dread and incomprehensible power. The words that predate Pharasma's grand experiment and with it this universe itself. The words that will give Hell a headache and me a cool story to recruit other advocates with. Say them.

You too, dude with the eyes. You know it's the correct interpretation of Nimmer and whatnot. And Myra, I assume you're on board with this?"

Inh sits back and leads the chorus of four voices while smiling and gesturing like an orchestra's conductor probably does.

"FOR CHAOS!"

"Subject to terms and conditions. Void where rendered unnecessary by law. Axis maintains that the Court need not and should not determine the alignment of Benediction to resolve the case at bar."

"Spoilsport."

Vulpes rubs his temples to assuage the headache.

"That is unsupported in law, Your Honor.

There is some authority that, as a general statement, disregarding divine commands is more Chaotic than Evil. But Elysium's argument simply does not engage with the more specific precedent. Trading in souls contributes to sidestepping these trials, and it is primarily Evil, not Chaotic. Erecura, having interfered with the appointed judgment, was assigned to the plane set aside for Lawful Evil.

As for in re Alighieri, it is true that there were other points for Good in that decision. Few cases are like this one, turning on a single specific question. It is hardly surprising that Alighieri was not another such exception. Nevertheless, the Court did adopt the Goodness of a correct sorting as one of its reasons in favor, and that proposition remains good law.

In short, it is Evil to disregard this divine command. We are all familiar with the statement that it is Evil to "upend that sorting which is among the great purposes of Creation by disconnecting planar destination from character." I believe the original formulation came from Nirvana v. Boneyard, but nearly every trial involving Malediction repeats it by rote, and it has been quoted to describe interferences from soul sales to creating a shabti. Many such cases."

"For those advocates who disagree, are you asking me to overrule precedent? Particularly regarding Lawful Evil casters of Malediction-- did earlier courts err in failing to rule that they were in fact Chaotic?"

"And Malediction follows the caster's current alignment. If casting it turned people Chaotic, Hell's mortal agents would quickly lose the ability to send it souls directly."

"Not seeing the problem there."

"That question is not before this Court. We are not tasked with maintaining a balance between Law and Chaos, merely with judging what is Chaotic.

Nevertheless, Hell is correct that that shift usually does not occur. A Lawful Evil caster generally remains Lawful Evil and future Malediction targets retain the same destination. Is this an error?"

"Yes! If the alignment is based on disobeying Pharasma's authority, that's absolutely more Chaotic than it is Evil.

And this dude was trying so hard to get Benediction ruled Evil, it'd be hilarious if he cost Hell its ability to kidnap people."

"To be clear, my question is meant to communicate that I'm not likely to overrule that much precedent. It is asking whether that means you lose."

"You could always rule that it's not about Pharasma's opinion. It's only Hell that thinks that matters, anyway. But if it is about going along with how the Powers want things to Be, that's definitely just Law and has nothing to do with Good. Nimmer, Earendil, et cetera."

"More precisely, even if the Court wishes to prioritize the judgment-avoiding aspect of Malediction, as compared to the suffering-causing aspects, this would not mean that every caster is Chaotic.

It is relatively rare for Malediction to be cast as part of a Lawful decision process or in obedience to Lawful authority. When it is simply revenge or a kidnapping, it often is a Chaotic act. In re No One, 1998. If the Court ruled that Malediction is Chaotic, it would not be declaring a new rule. It would be adding a factor to an existing test, with no need to rule that specific cases or practices are wrongly decided.

And of course, on those occasions where it is cast for Lawful reasons, the Court could consider that a mitigating factor the same as with any other question. So while it is a Chaotic act, it is not necessarily so Chaotic as to immediately change the caster's alignment. That would be a contextual question. And because the context of various Malediction cases is not before the Court, there is no need to rule against the previous decisions."

"It would inevitably mean that some of them were wrongly decided. Casters of Malediction are usually very strongly Evil aligned, but there is no such correlation toward Law or Chaos. We may assume that adding a new factor pointing consistently in one direction would have changed the alignment in some fraction of cases."

"Yes, but that is not more true here than it is with every proposed change to a legal rule. This does not prevent the Court from evolving its standard when necessary."

After an amount of deliberation that could just as easily have been an immediate answer or a week and a day, the judge speaks.

"Malediction is not before this Court. Anything further on the claimed Chaotic alignment of Benediction, or of developing it?"

"The Court is persuaded that the decedent's act in researching Benediction is decisive in this case. It was his broadest-scale action with effect on the most people, both as he perceived it and in all likelihood in actual outcome.

As to the alignment of that action, the outcome and the intent may diverge. It is undisputed that the decedent's intent was primarily Good, and that he believed the results would be actively in service of Good. Nevertheless, most of the predictions regarding possible outcomes were argument unsupported by admissible evidence. The opinions of advocates, however well-argued, are not substantive evidence. Hell was the only party to attempt to submit non-speculative outside prediction compliant with Tarot Readers Ass'n v. Merrell Dow, 2786. In the absence of conflicting experts, the Court takes Hell's economic predictions as unopposed. At least some of this evidence was credible. In particular, the Court finds it credible that the existence of a completed Benediction spell would result in substantially more sold souls. The Court finds that this is sufficient to establish some Evil effects, and does not believe it necessary to determine the credibility of the predictions regarding Evil in the general population.

Good intent and mixed results would ordinarily be an appropriate setting for a Leurdorfell balancing. However. Most of the claimed Evil results, with the exception of usurping Pharasma's judgments, were not known to the decedent until this trial. The Court does not believe him to have been deliberately indifferent or otherwise culpable in failing to realize every effect of his project. This Court sorts mortals based on their actions as a reflection of their character, and in this case the decedent's character is best represented by his motivations and attempts at mitigating those Evil effects that did occur to him.

The decedent did, however, act in full consciousness that he was usurping this Court. Many cases use language associating this with Evil, but few directly turn on that question. I am persuaded that this does, in fact, tend less toward Evil than toward Chaos. The decedent's act of developing Benediction was Chaotic Good, and the spell itself will very likely be fundamentally Chaotic for the same reason.

I do not hold that Malediction is also Chaotic. That question is not before the Court. Moreover, dicta from in re Sophia, 0422, which I presume Hell would have brought to the Court's attention if I appeared inclined to make that ruling, has observed that "Malediction was permitted by treaty and hence is not Chaotic." I make no holding on whether Sophia has sufficiently differentiated Malediction from the case at bar in agreeing with Elysium's argument FOR CHAOS.

I am aware that whether to apply treaties as binding law in this court beyond their explicit terms is a matter of some contention as described in in re Postal. The parties may feel free to debate whether this case and Sophia are taking a position on that issue, if in some future case they ever feel the need for a sixth layer of recursion.

The decedent Harrow is Chaotic Good, and will be sorted to Elysium. It is so ordered."

The judge and the Harrow immediately dissolve back into swirling light. Harrow's expression is obscured by the glow. The judge of course does not have one.

"Thank you Your Honor," Vulpes says to the fading judge. Sharp teeth flash behind a grin.

"Why are you gloating? Isn't this the exact opposite of your bullshit?"

"Of course. I made no arguments Hell would wish to see fail. Absent a serious chance of obtaining a ruling that Benediction is Evil, I suspected the way to obtain a ruling that it was Chaotic was to try anyway and let Chaos be the refutation. Simple and not at all suspicious. It was a bit of a relief to see a representative from Elysium today."

"And you'd want Chaos because? Don't bother. You're pulling the same trick you tried on Harrow. Maybe I'll track him down and tell him that, since I can do that now and you can't."

"Because no offense, but Chaotic Good isn't really a threat. You're not an opponent. You're just there, being too Chaotic to accomplish anything worth doing and too Good to try. Our enemy is over there." He gestures widely toward  the angel, who fixes him with a stare. "If this costs Heaven the Lawfulness of some of its mortal tools before they learn of this, my Lord will at least value the spite. And if in the long term Lawful Good must treat Benediction as a tradeoff instead of a straightforward rescue, if it becomes that little bit less lightly performed, that's only a small victory for Hell. But a victory nonetheless.

So I'm not going to thank you for your service. If you hadn't been looking for reasons to argue Chaotic Good, I could have dropped the right hints until Nirvana did. Or accepted the suspicion and argued it myself. You did not make Hell's second choice very much more certain, only helped it occur more smoothly. Don't blame yourself. If I couldn't get this much use out of an Elysian, I'd turn in my bar card and become a bioethicist."

"He's lying, of course. He'd have no reason to say it if he thought it was true."

There's no answer. The devil is already leaving the Boneyard, one last grin and wave visible through the light.