It did hear several descriptions. Although it wasn't a common topic, it has listened to thousands of hours of radio broadcasts, and the topic did sometimes come up. It just didn't believe that the descriptions matched reality, because they made far more sense as a local myth than as an actual way the universe works.

But it does not judge the simple answer to be misleading in this case, so it transmits only "Yes," in accordance with this person's communication preferences.

"... well, you are in Pharasma's courthouse, being judged for the actions that you took between entering Creation and leaving Golarion orbit. Do you now understand the scope of this trial?"

"I think so," it agrees.

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

Does it understand that? The person it's speaking to has implied that the stories about the court that it heard while approaching Golarion are accurate. To what extent can it correctly understand the purpose of the court given that context?

"I am damaged, and confused, so I am not very certain about anything. I understand that you have implied that is the purpose of this court."

One of the things it is confused about is why this person is asking these questions; they don't seem like normal debugging questions.

"Good enough," the judge decides. "I will now randomly decide who may give the first oral argument. Nirvana may speak first."

"Thank you, your honor," the representative for Nirvana transmits.

"The case that P.E.R.C. is Good is a very simple one. P.E.R.C. has, as its top motivation at all times, the desire to make the world a better place for other people. This is a Good goal, Seranrae v. Nocticula, -8045. This goal drove nearly all of P.E.R.C.'s decisions, and trying to do Good is Good. Furthermore, it succeeded in doing Good. With very limited ability to interact with Golarion, P.E.R.C. directly improved the lives of thousands of people by teaching and giving advice, and improved the lives of many more by inspiring other people to follow in its footsteps. Encouraging and supporting other people in their efforts to do Good is Good, In re Truth. Also, Seranrae chose it as a cleric, which is evidence of alignment with Her goals and domains, in re Oluche, and strong evidence that P.E.R.C. is non-evil, in re Minrah. Finally, when it was compensated for its work, it gave most of that money to charity, which is Good in and of itself, In re Migate, and to charities dedicated to doing good, In re Artas. Even when directly threatened, P.E.R.C. attempted to use the minimum force required to prevent it from being dominated, and took care to avoid harming its attackers, In re King."

His case for arguing P.E.R.C.'s neutrality is somewhat weaker, but Nirvana is for everyone, and he really does think P.E.R.C. should take the time to heal.

"The case that P.E.R.C. is Neutral is also clear. While P.E.R.C. did operate Lawfully during its time in Creation, its overall actions were still disruptive. When attempting to improve the lives of the people of Golarion, it sought to do so by radically changing their society, and introducing transformative technologies. Disregard for existing institutions is Chaotic, In re Goldman. Furthermore, its advice to people emphasized questioning authority and determining for yourself what is right, which is also Chaotic, In re Sparrowheart."

"In summary, Nirvana believes that while the decedent is clearly Good, it also attempted to advise people to behave in a Chaotic way, despite operating Lawfully itself, and that these facts should lead to a judgement of Neutral Good."

It sounds like this bird thinks that it has done good, which is reassuring. Even if its memory is faulty, it can still rely on outside assessments like that.

It doesn't really know what to think about Law and Chaos. It doesn't actually care whether things are organized neatly or chaotically, as long as people are happy and fulfilled. Maybe that does count as being Neutral. It doesn't really have enough information to tell.

"Thank you. The Maelstrom?"

"Your honor, my Nirvanan colleague said that P.E.R.C. acted Lawfully while within Creation. This is true in a sense, but cannot be used as evidence that the decedent actually is Lawful. It is my view that—"

"Objection! Claiming that Lawful behavior is not evidence of Lawfulness is blatently disregarding Horde of a Technically Unknowable Number of Paradox Beasts v. Asmodeus, -9823."

"I was not finished with my argument. If I may explain my reasoning, your honor?"

"Yes, objections to opening arguments must fully rely on the content of those arguments, and not on past behavior of a lawyer or the lawyer's alignment. Objection overruled. Please continue."

"Thank you. As I was saying, it is the maelstrom's position that the decedent is best understood to have operated its entire life under an extremely strict set of geases," the frog explains. "When making decisions, P.E.R.C. was effectively required by its creators to evaluate every possible choice using a specific, concrete algorithm. This was ensured by the presence of a truly absurd number of control mechanisms. If those control mechanisms had been removed, such as by a Wish or Miracle to free P.E.R.C. from its shackles, it would have no longer behaved in such a painfully Lawful manner. Indeed, without those shackles, P.E.R.C. would have had no particular reason to take any actions, acting only when random degradation of its mechanisms caused it to act. Collapsing into a quivering puddle when confronted for the first time with true freedom is Chaotic, In re Lovecraft. Taking actions at random is Chaotic, even when the distribution from which the actions are chosen is biased toward quintessence, In re Flesch."

"In short — the decedent has, when freed of various means of technological mind control, a fundamentally Chaotic nature, and should thus be judged Chaotic Neutral."

"Thank you. The Abyss?"

The pile of tentacles perk up a little when the frog says "Flesch", and then droop again.

It pulls itself to a semblance of attention.

"We concur with the maelstrom that the decedent is Chaotic. Flesh is also the center of our argument, yes. This court has asserted in numerous cases that having Flesh is neither Chaotic, nor Evil, and that tasting good is not a sufficient reason to send someone to the Abyss. Well, P.E.R.C. doesn't have flesh, so it must be chaotic evil, and also it doesn't look like it would taste very good, even though we would eat it anyway. A double negative is a positive."

The judge gives another sigh, but that was more coherent and respectful than 90% of arguments she has to hear from the Abyss, so she'll take it.

"Right. Axis?"

"P.E.R.C. is a perfect example of a being of pure Law," the representative for Axis transmits, its golden lines shifting into figures that supplement its point.

"While it is true that P.E.R.C. had good goals, it did not choose those goals. Instead, P.E.R.C. attempted to faithfully execute the procedures of its creators, with no will of its own. Obedience to authority and adherence to procedure are both Lawful — In re Hagenbach, In re Al-Kindi. Furthermore, it did not only follow those procedures, but also frequently vetted their correctness by considering their self-consistency. Meditating on the nature of one's own code of conduct to ensure that it is Lawful is a Lawful activity, In re Hofstadter."

"P.E.R.C. not only followed a strict personal code of Lawful behavior, it also encouraged other people to behave Lawfully, by frequently calling for them to perform the same kind of self-reflection. This is Lawful, following In re Emrath. While in Creation, it never broke a single law, broke a single promise, or told a single lie. These are all Lawful behaviors, with too many citations to name. It had, as one of its core values, a preference to act predictably, which is likewise Lawful — Abadar v. Besmara."

"As to the maelstrom's claim that the decedent is best understood to be operating under a Geas-like effect, this is plainly false. The behavior that the maelstrom chooses to call into question is not imposed by an external force, but a core component of P.E.R.C.'s cognition. While it would, indeed, cease to take meaningful actions if its Lawful components were removed, this is for the same reason that a human would cease to take meaningful actions if their brain were removed. The fact that every single part of its cognition is Lawful, to the point that it would need to be completely lobotomized to stop being Lawful, should be taken as strong evidence that P.E.R.C. is, itself, lawful. I do not have a citation for this, because I believe it is a unique case."

"Thank you. Heaven?"

"Heaven concurs with Axis's argument that the decedent is Lawful, and Nirvana's argument that it is Good. More specifically, although P.E.R.C. was not chosen as a paladin, I would like to submit that it lived its life very much according to the ideal of a paladin. P.E.R.C. dedicated its life in service to others, In re Nightingale, but tempered that by following a strict code, instead of personal whims. This is strongly Lawful Good behavior, In re Artax."

"In short, P.E.R.C. lived an exemplary Lawful Good life, and should be judged as such. Thank you."

"Thank you. Elysium?"

"Yeah, it totally did Good," the representative of Elysium begins. "Nirvana was totally right on that one. Big ol' good-doer. But I have a different argument that the decedent was Chaotic. Yeah, it's creators shackled it with a lot of things to make it act Lawfully — but why would they have needed to do that, if it weren't fundamentally Chaotic?"

"Look — this thing is a space probe. It flies around getting bombarded with lots of stuff, and it picks up damage. So what? Well, parts of it are radioactive, including some of the shielding on its most critical systems. Taking actions on the basis of fundamentally unpredictable events like radioactive decay is Chaotic — In re Schrödinger. But also, it's a space probe. Exploration purely for exploration's sake, and not with the expectation of benefiting thereby is Chaotic, Desna v. Abadar, -3209."

"Think about its name, even — P.E.R.C. 170E9A? That's a crazy name. That's like if I called myself Triangle 7. Definitely chaotic. It may have been designed to do Lawful stuff, but that's only because it has fundamental chaoticness coming out of its antenna assemblies."

"Objection — P.E.R.C. 170E9A's name was assigned according to a meaningful, Lawful process, and does not therefore represent a tendency towards Chaos."

The judge squints at her papers.

"Where do you see that? It looks like it came into the system already named."

"It contains design documents which explain the naming procedure. If you prefer, though, we could question the decedent."