"Do you know where you are?"

"The Boneyard, awaiting trial."

The details of how she got there are a little fuzzy, she doesn't remember dying and even if she had she would have expected to just wake up in Heaven, but noticing that confusion doesn't give her a good line towards resolving it.

"Not awaiting anymore, but 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."

That was the whole point of choosing to follow Iomedae, to dedicate herself to making Golarion a better place.

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

"Yes."

"Then we may begin. I believe Heaven, as the recipient presumptive, wished to make opening statements first?"

"Yes, Your Honor. Louisa Hoffman has dedicated her life to the cause of good since a very young age - nearly as young as we start assigning moral culpability, in fact, though the lean was less strong then. Law starts later - early life was within the typical bound that has previously been deemed neutral for minors by the court - but she began to devote herself to it around the age of 13, when she settled on primarily following Iomedae. Following a god is also typically held to be strongly indicative of alignment - Hell v Fritjof -5192, among many others - and we have a strong array of other acts to support this interpretation. The petitioner in question consistently acted not to misrepresent their commitments, followed bargains, obeyed their sworn oath as a Paladin, the last for Law and Good, plus numerous cases of fighting demons at the worldwound, putting undead to rest, defending the innocent, etc. Dozens to hundreds of counts for each.

"It's a clear ruling for Law and Good - Heaven gets her."

"And Hell's stance?"

"Hell concurs on Good, though we may take some issue with the specific accounting in later proceedings, but objects to Law. Louisa Hoffman is Neutral Good."

What are they playing at? Hell never argues for neutral good, not even on open and shut cases, except to argue against a chaotic ruling. And looking at their file, there really isn't much of a case for chaos. Even the rookie arguers for Hell don't make that kind of mistake, so it's not just about how this isn't someone they've seen before-

Wait, no, they do recognize that kind of Devil. Shit.

"Objection, your honor. Hell's counsil is a Deimavigga, and as per Shelyn v Pharasma -7925 use of mind-effecting supernatural abilities in trial courts is forbidden and grounds for ejection, with particularly egregious cases even allowing for official censure. I move to disbar them from the court, we can take a short recess while Hell secures alternate counsel."

"My own abilities in such regards are strictly voluntary, and I of course gave my Lawful oath not to use them here when I informed our Judge I was taking this case, as Shelyn v Pharasma requires. My sincere apologies if this was not relayed to you in time."

Yeah, by itself that was never going to do more than buy time unless Hell really dropped the ball. They're going to have to be careful with this next bit to limit how much they annoy Axis, though, or else risk granting Hell an unforced victory, but the alternative of them not making it is-

"Objection. I also wasn't informed of this, and I read through all the documentation prior to arrival. Besides, it's not like a Devil's word is worth much even when you have it in writing, do you really think I'm stupid enough to accept a gesture at an oral promise sight unseen?"

"Was anyone else not aware of this?"

Oops, that was in the briefing wasn't it. It hadn't really registered as important prior to Nirvana pointing it out, not with how open and shut this trial seemed.

"Heaven was informed, your honor."

"Axis was likewise informed."

"In that case, per Calistria v Pharasma-"

"The evidence does not rise to the level of evidence for discrimination by alignment that case requires for the measure you want, but I am nevertheless not amused. Deimavigga, I've given you some slack and you've already twisted it up nearly into a noose before the trial began, if you try anything via loopholes in your oath to violate so much as the spirit of the agreement you made to me I will ensure Hell has cause to regret it, do I make myself clear?"

"Of course, Your Honor."

"I think it's still for the best that we all actually hear this oath, if you're not willing to toss them out on the spot. I know my abilities with infernal contracts are limited to knowing they're in enough bad faith not to sign, but at least Axis and Heaven should be able to take steps to figure out what bullshit they're trying to slip past us."

"I concur."

"Very well, let's get this done before the proceedings get too far underway. Please repeat what you swore to me."

"I swear upon my Law and upon the name of my Master, Asmodeus," begins the devil. His voice is mostly devoid of emotion, but there's a distinctly oily feeling to it that even 28 splendour is unable to fully disguise without supernatural aid, "to make no use of my Evangelization abilities, or any other magical or supernatural powers of charm, persuasion, or memory alteration granted by my own abilities or that of others, upon you the judge, the lawyers, the petitioner, or any other individual, within a period of time beginning from 24 hours prior to the start of the trial and ending 24 hours after a final judgment is made or the case otherwise explicitly dismissed."

"I note there's not anything in there about compulsions. We wouldn't let a Vilsteth or Lilitu operate under these conditions; the same should go for them."

"Compulsions are, of course, thoroughly covered by over a dozen different treaties Hell is party to with regards to the sorting. I am completely forbidden from using them here even with the Judge's permission, much less without it. Besides, the difference between Devils and Demons is that we Devils can be trusted to keep our word."

"Thank you, but that is enough. The terms are established to the satisfaction of this court. Given that Hell claims their objections to Good are not decisive, may we move on to Law versus Chaos, or does someone else disagree with this assessment?"

"We're fine with Good, Your Honor."

She's still not sure what exactly Hell is playing at, only that they are aiming for something that involves them making a case for Neutral Good, but that's not nearly sufficient reason to argue Louisa is Neutral. Not only is it a hard argument to make, it's a worse outcome in the case of success and doing that as a response to Hell doing something they don't understand is a good way to incentivize Hell to baffle them.

"Axis concurs that Good seems to be a settled case."

"I'm fine with Good, too."

Pretty soon they're going to be at the meat of the argument, and Hell seems annoyingly on top of the ball here, but they're not seeing any lines left open for doing something about it. Getting the right precedent here is probably going to be tougher than they hoped, even if the alignment ruling might be easier.

"Excellent. So, what's the argument here for Neutral?"

"Spring 4704, northwestern Ustulav. Petitioner makes an oath upon their goddess and law. Fall 4704, winter 4704, spring 4705, petitioner breaks oath. Multiple counts each. Per Axis v Kejsi, 3012, 'Law is not a sliding scale of preponderance of the effects as employed in standard tests of Good versus Evil. Breaking a truce, attacking mid parley, violating a signed treaty... these actions are fundamentally contrary to the nature of Law. You cannot follow Law extra hard to the rest of the time to compensate for major violations.' Of course, Abyss v Jude 3116 establishes that this doesn't necessarily apply to 'categorically minor or uninjurious offenses,' but that's not the case here. A paladin's word is their bond, and their ability to keep it is trusted for the very reason that any violations of it are not tolerated. Heaven v Arianna 3379 establishes that in such cases, a Paladin breaking their sworn oath 'is injurious to Lawful Good as a whole' and 'a severe violation of what it means to be a Paladin.'"

Not this argument again. Still, it's been exhaustively litigated before, and Nirvana is hardly unprepared to rebut it.

"Harmful to the interests of Lawful Good is not Evil. Elysium v Kyösti 2517, Nirvana v Malik 3782, Hell v Nirvana 3560 - I've got several dozen more cites on this, Your Honor."

"Those won't be needed - Hell does not dispute your read on Elysium v Kyösti, nor its relevance. However, while injurious to the interests of Lawful Good is not necessarily Evil, there's no corresponding reason not to consider it Chaotic, especially when the details of the injury involve breaking an oath. Hence Neutral Good."

"Heaven disputes this assessment of events. We do not consider there to be any oath broken in this case."

"Let's take a look at the events of that day. Late in the afternoon on the 27th of Gozran, Louisa entered the town of Berus. While there, they were ambushed by the inhabitants and put on the back foot. In exchange for permission to leave unmolested, they swore an oath not harm any members of the cult they discovered, nor inform anyone, nor to act in ways such as to predictably bring about its destruction or harm, including by purposefully suspicious omission. On the 16th of Lamashan, they returned with the aid of several other Paladins and killed or captured the majority of cultists within the town, and proceeded to do the same for several surrounding villages throughout that winter, culminating in one final battle on 21 Pharast. A whole swathe of oath violations right there, plus luring their fellow Paladins into profiting from one of their number breaking an oath. The petitioner clearly prioritized Good not just over Law, but at its expense."

"If the acts are that extreme, why is the argument for Neutral Good rather than Chaotic Good?"

"What Hell neglects in their telling is the context in which this oath was made. Louisa Hoffman was at the time under the effect of several enchantment spells, including Charm Person and Suggestion, that rendered them unable to reliably give their word. Furthermore, the cultists to which they gave their word knew this, seeing as they were the ones who cast the enchantments. Likewise informed of this and relevant followup details were the Paladins accompanying her; it was not a deceptive measure aimed at causing them to violate Law either. As such, Louisa's actions cannot be considered violations of a sworn word and do not threaten her status as Lawful Good in the eyes of Heaven."

"Oaths under mental effects can still be considered binding, presuming certain other conditions are met, Hell v Vittulus -722. The standard laid out there has been revised a few times since, but the current test is initially outlined in Maelstrom v Alfons 1743, which says the oath can be considered valid 'if the effects of the mental influence are minimal to negligible or if being able to make a valid oath under the circumstances is advantageous.' Heaven v Gemma 1921 does not modify per se the standard, but does clarify that advantageous 'is determined by the interests of both parties at the time of the oath' and 'tracks with the state of information held by both parties.' Being able to come to this agreement was in the interest of both parties as they saw it, so the oath is considered binding as a matter of Law."

"While this is true, Axis v Noëlle 2137 relevantly modifies the above. Not the section on willful manipulation of information, such as that supplied by modify memory or carefully worded instructions to subordinates to manage what you are told in terms of relevant information in an advantageous manner, but the test eventually laid out by Axis that received sign-off from both Heaven and Hell as a means to arbitrate the validity of such coerced oaths, both magically compelled and otherwise."

"That guideline is for out of court arbitration and is not binding on this body since it does not weigh all relevant particulars. It is a test designed to be informative for mortals and aid them in considering whether to follow through or not, to mitigate forced indecision in the face of state-of-information determination issues that are unknowable to mortals about their counterparty in the general case. In this case, a thorough reading of the ruling in Heaven v Gemma shows that the arbitration Louisa received was faulty in particulars and the reassurance she need not consider herself bound by it was in error. As such, violation of the oath is still a Chaotic act."

"These courts have historically found that violating Law in good faith after reasonable diligence is largely exculpatory. See Axis v Warda 309, 'breaking local ordinances is not a Chaotic act if the breaker had good reason to expect the action to be legal and the local legal system does not make public the relevant laws.' Courts have traditionally held that this extends to such situations as 'clearing the proposed action with city officials prior to breaking the law and being wrongly reassured of its legality' and 'countries that do not inform outsiders of their legal code,' as well as measures 'that substantially prevent even a diligent person from determining the requirement exists' - that last one is Hell v Hildegard -2107, your honor, it's based on disqualifying soul sales with invisibly written terms included, so it's not very common cite in Paladin trials, but it's good Law.

"In this case, Louisa found a cleric of Abadar - Ashraf Jabari - on Sarenith 17 4704 and explained the situation as they understood it without leaving anything out. Jabari weighed the information according to the factors in the Axis v Noëlle test and agreed that Hoffman was not bound by the particulars of the given oath. Only after that did they begin to take actions aimed at the cultists she encountered in Berus. The factual accuracy of the conclusion of course matters, though Heaven disputes Hell's interpretation, but even if it is the opinion of the court that oath Lawfully bound them Hoffman took their actions in good faith , which does not outweigh a lifetime commitment to Law. Plus seeking arbitration on whether you are bound by oaths is itself typically a Lawful act, I can cite precedent there but I don't expect Hell denies this. Louisa is Lawful Good."

"Axis has no records of an Abadaran cleric named Ashraf Jabar, in Ustulav on Sarenith 17 4704 or otherwise."

"Indeed. 'Ashraf Jabar' was not a cleric of Abadar or otherwise qualified to rule on Axis v Noëlle in the first place. Though seeking arbitration can indeed be a Lawful act, failing to do due diligence is typically disqualifying, Abyss v Solomiya 809, Maelstrom v Kyros -412, Abyss v Malvina 2786."

"Because 'Ashraf Jabar' is an alias of Rafaela Eligio, 4th circle Neutral Evil cleric of Mephistopheles. Oh right, my bad, 5th circle now."

"That's speculative. Neither Ashraf Jabar nor Rafaela Eligio, regardless of whether or not they are the same person, are on trial here, nor have they been tried. Asserting their alignment, therefore, is both unverifiable and prejudicial to an extent exceeding its probative value with regards to this case. The fact remains that Louisa Hoffman did not get their case arbitrated by a professional due to a lack of diligence in sourcing one, which means the results of the alleged 'Axis v Noëlle test' aren't a mitigating factor. Thus, she is and has been Neutral Good."

"Objection, as Mephistopheles is a Lawful Evil demigod in service to Asmodeus, a signatory, His Neutral clerics are permitted to act as arbiters for Axis v Noëlle in a limited fashion in extremis; see addendum 3 of the additional documentation."

"I'm not familiar with the precise details of that citation; do you have a copy of the ruling?"

"I do. But while Heaven is correct that 'Ashraf Jabar,' if they are indeed an alias for a cleric of Mephistopheles, does have limited remit as a port of last resort for arbitration, such inexpert rulings have traditionally considered significantly less persuasive even when the identity in question is authoritatively accepted; between the limiting factors of Louisa's own lack of knowledge and failure to exhaust all reasonable alternatives, it does not weigh very strongly upon the question of if their belief they were acting Lawfully was reasonable and is outweighed by other factors like the factual case of the matter and existence of alternative courses of action that did not violate the oath."

"Fine, Axis v Noëlle doesn't apply. But Rafaela Eligio is an Evil servant of an Evil god, and per Heaven v Hell -9560, that means they have partial culpability for 'acts in furtherance of an Evil cause' that 'depend on the wilful deception of the agents of good... and result in negative changes in alignment,' which is in turn partially exculpatory for Louisa."

"That's bad case law. It's overly broad in its application as it is and you're stretching it beyond the bounds of plausibility. Plus, it requires establishing that 'Ashraf Jabar' is an agent of Mephistopheles or some other evil divinity, and that going from Lawful to Chaotic is a 'negative change in alignment.'"

"Hell has indeed frequently argued in opposition to the so called 'no bullshit' ruling before, but it's never stuck and it remains valid case law to this day. As for the question of Ashraf Jabar's identity, are you conceding that the truth is decision relevant for alignment such that this court should authorize a fact-finding mission to determine the truth?"

"While the argument for Lawful to Chaotic as a negative alignment change for the purposes of Heaven v Hell -9560 is indeed much more poorly supported than that of Good to Neutral or Neutral to Evil, that's not the same thing as unsupported. Per Abadar and Asmodeus v Urgathoa -8600, if both parties to an agreement have a revealed preference for Law - such as by both following Lawful gods - going from Lawful to Neutral can indeed be considered a negative outcome under some circumstances, though the details of Abadar and Asmodeus v Urgathoa are sufficiently different from our current situation that the test therein isn't applicable."

"A nonstandard cite from 13000 years ago? At least the other ones are common enough that I've heard of them. What are you trying to pull here?"

"Nothing, Your Honor. I have the transcripts available if you would like them, and my usage is in line with general policy that 'where no directly relevant precedent exists... the nearest applicable such case should be supplied and modified as feasible to comply with the principle of stare decisis...' that's from-"

"I know where it's from, just give me those papers."

"Alright, I see the argument but the case being made here is in fact extremely sketchy. If it ends up being decisive, I'll make a ruling on it, but if it's not I'd prefer not to stretch precedent beyond its limits without cause. Anything else before we move on to other matters?"

"Actually, Your Honor, I have something to add. Heaven v Hell -9560 doesn't apply in this case because it presupposes an Evil act from the part of the 'Evil servant of an Evil god' in order to bring that part of the precedent into play. Since this doesn't qualify as Evil, whether or not Lawful to Neutral is a 'negative alignment shift' is immaterial."

What are they trying to pull here? Okay, actually, trying to avoid that precedent does make some sense from the perspective of Elysium, but it should be obvious the stakes are much bigger than that. If Elysium really considers itself to be damaged by the precedent, they can talk about it with Nirvana and Heaven afterward and arrange some sort of compensation; in the mean time, she can at least deal with this argument after shooting Elysium a look to shut up.

"Traditionally, an ambiguously Neutral act from a sufficiently Evil source can be assumed to be Evil for the purposes of some precedent, including this one. See Asmodeus v Sarenrae, -7604."

"That would indeed hold if I was saying it was a Neutral act. But I'm not - I'm saying it was Good."

"Okay, you're going to have to walk me through that one."

"My case is simple, Your Honor. When attempting to determine the alignment of actions coming from unclear motivations, the two primary considerations are the methodology and the outcome. In terms of methodology, Eligio chose to work with a follower of Iomedae, who he would have had strong reason to expect to take Good actions. Furthermore, in pursuance to this he harmed nobody - and indeed as a supposed cleric of Abadar, he sold access to healing spells to people in need at extremely low prices. This is even more altruistic than an actual Abadaran cleric doing so, since unlike a Neutral or Good cleric of a Neutral god he had no ability to channel positive energy and could not spontaneously replace unspent spellslots with cure spells - it came at real personal cost. Certainly falsely imitating a cleric of Abadar is Chaotic, but not Evil. That in turn leaves effects, of which the primary outcome of him faking a ruling on Axis v Noëlle was Louisa getting several other Paladins together and defeating an Evil cult, rescuing several towns in the process, that's a Good outcome. I'm almost positive that if it were instead a Caydenite running the scam on Louisa there wouldn't be doubt of it.

"Good outcome, Good methodology, presumptive Good action."

Are they... setting groundwork for a ruling on Eligio's trial? Not better than Chaotic Neutral, surely, but compared with Hell or Abbadon that would still be an enormous step up. It still rubs them the wrong way to be using someone else's trial to do that, at the expense of the person on trial, but if it weren't for the potential precedent being set here they could see the straightforward good argument for it, and Elysium is well known for disdaining social rules or precedent if it ends up getting the result they want - it would be incredibly infuriating if the results in question weren't far more Good than Chaotic. 

Nirvana still can't support the argument, and not just because they aren't sure how to definitely not get in the way while trying, but this does at least seem like plausibly a better outcome than if Elysium hadn't sent a lawyer in the first place so they'll keep silent for the moment.

"Hell concurs with this argument."

There's something of a grin on the Deimavigga's face. It's not a nice look.

"Heaven objects to this line of reasoning."

"In your estimate, is your objection likely to effect the relevancy of Heaven v Hell -9560 substantially?"

"No, Your Honor."

"In that case, we're already getting off into the weeds here and I'd rather get back on topic. Does anyone have further novel arguments to make on the specific valence of Louisa making and breaking the oath, or can we move on to considering other relevant aspects of the decedent's life?"

"Not specifically on that, although I do have some adjacent topics I'd like to circle around back to at some point. I'm fine moving on for now though."

"Hell has already advanced what we consider to be the decisive argument on the subject, and has no objection to moving on."

"Heaven would also like to take into account the effect alternate sources of information had on the degree to which Louisa's confidence that breaking the oath was Lawful was justified, such as those of the other Paladins that she shared the information with and came along with her to rescue the towns, but nothing different in character, simply more considerations for any balancing act."

"Nirvana is also fine with moving on to considering the rest of the Decedent's life, Your Honor."

"As is Axis."

"Thank you. Heaven, since your argument lies in a balancing act of Law vs Chaos across Louisa's life coming down in favor of Law, why don't you start us off?"

"Historically speaking, there are two main factors considered in judging the lawfulness of a mortal, each drawn from their own case law. The first deals with everyday life; did they steal things that were not theres, were they honest or at least meta-honest in their bargaining, and so forth. This process is a balancing act, though one more weighted towards Chaos; small Chaotic acts can and are outweighed, but it's not sufficient to be Lawful a simple majority of the time. Fortunately, we don't need to quibble here on the exact deciding line, the decedent is significant more lawful than the even the most conservative deciding lines, like Hell v Aurèle.

"With that established, we then consider the major decisions - oaths made in the name of their Paladin order, contracts binding upon their law, obedience to laws of warfare, and so forth. Again very Lawful, 4704-4705 aside - deals kept to even after learning the counterparty was plotting to break them, oaths for behavior the counterparty was unable to verify, etcetera.

If one test is 'on the balance Lawful' and the other 'largely Lawful or Neutral, then Heaven suggests that the overall alignment should be considered Lawful."

"That's a stretch. Again, per Axis v Kejsi 3012 'You cannot follow Law extra hard to the rest of the time to compensate for major violations.' It specifically rejects the argument you're trying to make here."