"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?"