"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."