"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."