"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?"