Elysium is here, represented by a giant part-tree part-lion angel, blowing in a nonexistent wind, and bizarrely shrunk down to be the same approximate size as the rest of the representatives.

The Maelstrom is also here, represented by... a bicycle stuck in a tree.

The abyss is also here, represented by a fairly typical demon.

That's everyone Althur expected.

The Elysium and Maelstrom representatives are relatively weird for their class of outsider. And have bicycles even been invented yet in the world the petitioner is from?

The Abyss has a more conventional representative. It looks like a predator, which means it's almost certainly an ex-mortal of some kind. (The never-mortal ones are weirder.)

The Judge appears and surveys the gathered representatives clustered on one half of the alignment chart.

"All right, I'm going to get the petitioner now. Any arguments before I bring them?"

"Your honor, Axis v. The Abyss, -13701, ruled that outsiders are forbidden from revealing technology unknown to a mortal's world without an allocatur from a Pharasmin court. The representative of The Maelstrom is in the form of a bicycle, which I believe is unknown to Golarion, and I don't believe any such writ was provided in the pre-trial brief?"

"The decedent is not a mortal but a petitioner, a type of outsider. The precedent doesn't apply"

"A petitioner is bound by that requirement if there is a chance of resurrection. The bound for, quote, displaying reproductions of technology or blueprints of technology with the accuracy required to reproduce said technology, unquote, requires a lower chance of resurrection than required to hold a trial."

The bicycle shifts until it is no longer a functioning bicycle, merely two wheels, some gears, and a chain, held together by an assortment of metal tubes.

"Acceptable?"

"Acceptable."

"Very well then."

The Judge disappears from the courtroom for twelve seconds, and when he reappears—

—a second before he reappears, an origami axiomite appears at the desk reserved for representatives of Axis—

—he has with him the decedent. She doesn't have the shaken look nor the confusion of some petitioners who died a violent death.

"This court is now in session, in the matter of In re Safira.

"Do you know where you are?"

    "The Boneyard."

"Does it sound to you like we are speaking in a language you understand, using words you are familiar with, at a speed you can follow?"

    "Yes."

"Do you understand that you had, while alive, the capacity to take actions, and that those actions had effects on the world and on other people?"

    "Yes."

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

    "Yes."

The Judge looks at the four original representatives, not turning toward the previously empty lawful side of the courtroom.

"I'm prepared to hear opening arguments now."

One of the lions that makes up the form of the representative from Elysium looks at the axiomite and raises an eyebrow, an uncanny imitation of a human, but doesn't hesitate to begin speaking.

"Your Honor, the decedent didn't participate in any large scale acts of Good or Evil, so we turn to everyday acts. The decedent never took direct action to harm others, and in many cases took direct action to avoid harming others or prevent others from coming to harm. She's Good."

"Not taking direct action to harm others is not a Good act, it's a Neutral act. And the cases where the decedent took action to prevent harm to others or to avoid harming others all took place within a society which would have punished her for most of the counterfactual lack of action. That's a clear contaminant of overwhelming self interest, and so all the acts you described were Neutral."

"Elysium and The Maelstrom overlook one large-scale act of Evil: committing suicide. The decedent ended her own life, which is Evil, In Re Halfling Slave #293, -9657. As this is the act in her life with the most moral strength, it overrides the everyday acts, and she's Evil."

"The act in question was not suicide, as it was not intended to end her life despite having the consequence of her own death, In Re Issachar, -6806."

"But the act was legibly to the decedent likely to end her own life, and she did not accept the risk of death in expectation of positive utility relative to dying, which is still Evil, In Re Emalliah -6112."

"She did accept the risk in expectation of positive utility. The counterfactual circumstance she considered was either being taken back to her family, or escaping across the ravine she tried to jump. She valued her freedom more than she disvalued dying and disvalued dying less than she disvalued being taken back to her family. People are allowed to have outcomes they value less than dying, In Re Omitsue -5291."

"Omitsue explicitly disclaims using those valuations as justification for suicide."

"Yes, but this wasn't a suicide. It was an accidental death which was risked but not intended while fleeing a fate worse than death."

"Propose a test to distinguish this death from suicides if you think there's a significant difference."

"There was a plausible-to-the-decedent effect of the action that resulted in a state better, by the decedent's values, than death. Suicide by poison or falling on a sword does not have a plausible resulting state better than the decedent's values than death. Best case scenario, they die, worst case scenario, they fail and are in the presumed-worse-than-death status quo. This decedent risked death to achieve her freedom, and if she had made the jump, she would have considered that scenario better than death."

"So, what, any suicidal and delusional idiot who can convince themself that jumping off a cliff could solve their problems doesn't count as suicide?"

"As a secondary criteria the court could discard cases where the decedent self-deceived about the chances of success in order to avoid Halfling Slave #293."

"How about the court discards cases where there was no possible way for the decedent to achieve their goal?"

"The decedent's alignment should be determined primarily by their actions and beliefs about their actions, not unrelated facts about the world, Carta Pharasmarum §209."

"Facts about the consequences of ones actions are not unrelated facts, same citation, and your Honor, if we're really going to cite Carta I think that we've exhausted debate"

"Agreed. The court recognizes Elysium's proposed first and second criteria, with the allowance that the court may additionally discard the argument if The Abyss' criteria is shown to hold."

"Thank you.

"The Abyss argues that it was impossible for the decedent to achieve her goal, and therefore the death should be ruled a suicide. Based on the decedent's anatomy, position, and velocity immediately prior to jumping, it was impossible for her to physically make the jump."

"What level of precision do you need to conclude impossibility? Mortals can't do physics calculations in their head."

"The Judge just ruled that deaths in which there was no possible way for the decedent to achieve their goal are suicides, and therefore this is a suicide. Whether the decedent could have known that is explicitly disclaimed."

"I ruled that a Judge may discard the argument, intending specifically to address cases of self-deception or recklessness. It doesn't seem like there's any more productive debate on this topic, so I rule the decedent's actions were not suicide, and therefore an everyday act."

"Nevertheless, it's an Evil everyday act, as it disproportionately hurt others for the decedent's gain."

"Actually, it was a Good act.

"Everyday acts which are intended to be selfish but have a positive net effect are Good, In Re Hadriel, -3101. This act had a positive net effect, as the decedent's father failed to keep her death a secret, and has been brought to the attention of various lawmakers in Osirion who will no doubt tweak their laws to add additional protections for young women, which is Good.

"Additionally, dying for a cause you believe in is Good if the cause is Good; freedom from tyranny is Good, The Maelstrom v. Nirvana -6008"

"It wasn't freedom from tyranny, it was freedom from family and a non-tyrannical social order. That means the act was Chaotic, not Good."

"I'll rule it a Chaotic Neutral act, unless Nirvana has evidence that it will have the posited positive effects."

"A report of the incident was brought to the attention of a local cleric of Abadar, who escalated to his superior, who sent a summary of the report to his superior in the Black Dome with a recommendation that something be done to prevent further suicides because of forced marriages."

"That could simply result in a higher level of Osirian tyranny against unmarried women, which would be an Evil result and thus an Evil act."

"Nirvana believes that the government of Osirion is unlikely to react in that way. We could authorize a Scry and a Detect Thoughts to determine what they are thinking about the proposal."

"You want me to authorize an 11th circle spell to Scry through the Black Dome to assess the second-order consequences of an everyday act? I don't think that's justifiable."

"It won't be needed. Axis has significant investment within the Dome, and we can verify Nirvana's second-order hypothesis. The Good second order consequences and Good intent balance out the Evil of a near-suicide. It's a Neutral act, morally."

The Judge turns to the Lawful side of the courtroom when Axis speaks.

"Representatives must be in the courtroom when the trial starts. Axis cannot opportunistically show up to trials halfway through."

"Trials start when the Judge declares them to be in session. I arrived the round before you declared it in session, representatives are allowed to skip making opening arguments, and are not forced to argue on every issue.

"Besides, I'm a representative of Axis. I could hardly want to break the rules even if it were momentarily advantageous."

"Okay. It's a neutral act. Any other everyday acts that aren't neutral that either side wants to put forth?"

"Just to preempt both Elysium and The Abyss: the decedent had multiple opportunities to harm others in order to gain material objects, social standing, or other personal benefits, and always refused. Good, In Re Baurun, -3177, abstaining from Evil at personal cost is Good. However, the decedent also had multiple opportunities to do significant Good at very little cost, and rarely did so, which is Evil, In Re Salatoka, 1203. With no morally charged acts, the balancing test should determine she's Neutral."

Another of the lions turns to look at the representative from Axis.

"No objections to Neutral."

"Alright then, Chaotic Neutral. I—"

"I'm sorry, we haven't argued systemic alignment yet.

"The decedent is Lawful."

"Okay, I'll hear the argument, but mostly because I'm curious what you've come up with and Axis has a remarkably good reputation for low bullshit. But, if this is a waste of our time, I will ban you in particular from attending trials until every human alive on Golarion today has died or exceeded their natural lifespan."

"I know the argument that Chaos doesn't think it has to make. The decedent rebelled against her family, broke the law, and—yes, I am aware and do not dispute it—broke an oath.

"First, rebelling against your family for your own notion of law isn't Chaotic, In Re Tsakath, -40. The decedent did not die for freedom in the abstract, as Elysium previously claimed, but for freedom from a system she perceived as unfair, and fairness is a core notion of Law, In Re Oooo, -9331.

"Second, breaking the law isn't Chaotic, it's merely "an interpretative tool in the absence of other actions or motivations", In Re Apprias, -5413, but we have already discussed the decedent's actions and motivations. The decedent only broke the law once; she fled her father's house under the cover of night, breaking Osirion's laws about curfews for non-adventurer women. Why did she break this law? She did not break the law because she thought rules shouldn't apply to her, In Re Dgema, -318. She did not break the law because she was tempted by the gains of breaking the law this specific time, In Re Yubr, 30. She did not break the law because she believed she would not be caught, In Re Gyges, -375. She did not break the law because she didn't agree with this specific law, despite agreeing with the method by which laws were made, In Re Polistex, 867.

"She broke the law because she considered which decision procedures one ought to use when deciding whether to follow the law, and determined that it made sense to only follow a law if the entity which is creating and enforcing the law is dealing fairly, in some sense, with one. This is an eminently Lawful approach to breaking the law, and the argument that one may have decision procedures which allow breaking local law is well established in too many cases to cite, especially the many controversial trials for decedents who acted as spies in Cheliax during the last hundred years, not one of which has been ruled Chaotic.

"Finally, the same is true of her oath-breaking. The decedent swore a single oath, which was made under false pretenses, and later decided that it wasn't worth holding to oaths made under false pretenses, because doing so incentivizes actors to cause one to be under false pretenses when they want one to swear oaths. Historically, the defense of enforcing oaths sworn under various detrimental situations has relied on the fact that being able to do so is valuable for the individual making the oath, and refusing to enforce such oaths would be harmful to the oath-maker, but the decedent considered and rejected that the logic applied in her situation.

"Axis does not, to be clear, entirely think that the decedent's logic was impeccable, but the actions, while they appear Chaotic, were made with enough careful thought that they should be considered Lawful instead."

Nirvana looks at Elysium.

Elysium looks at The Maelstrom.

The Maelstrom looks at The Abyss.

"Bullshit."

"Fine, no one else is going to call bullshit?

"First, in Tsakath the decedent left their family for a more lawful organization the family disapproved of; that's not the case here. Oooo was an argument over whether a strong innate sense of fairness was Lawful or Good, and shouldn’t be considered a precedent for whether 'wanting things to be fair' is sufficient to rule someone Lawful over Chaotic. In fact, many Chaotic individuals decry systems of law for their unfairness, and prefer the less hierarchical systems that more Chaotic societies have.

"Second, blah blah breaking the law isn't Chaotic we all know this, except that the four cases you list didn’t argue the decedent could be Lawful, they argued the decedent could be Neutral. No one at those trials attempted to argue that had they met the relevant criteria that they could be Lawful, merely Neutral. You can't seriously expect us to find the argument that these precedents apply to judging someone Lawful.

"And lastly, the oath breaking. Thinking you're Lawful while doing something Chaotic does not make you Lawful. It just makes you stupid. The decedent swore an oath to reassure her dying mother that she would see her in Axis, and it was made conditional on her brother, quote, trying as hard as he could to get her out of the marriage her father had arranged for her, end quote. The brother tried as hard as he could, failed to do so, and the decedent broke the oath because she decided it wasn't worth being Lawful—so, Chaotic."

"Her brother swore her to the oath knowing and intending that there was nothing he could do. The balancing test is to consider whether or not individuals in the decedent's position would have benefited from having the option to swear the oath or not. What benefit did the decedent derive from making the oath? None. What counterfactual benefit could the decedent have derived from making the oath? None."

"One, the decedent benefited by comforting her dying mother. Two, in counterfactual situations with the same state of knowledge while swearing the oath, the decedent could have gotten out of the marriage. By making all oaths breakable if the decedent is wrong about the state of knowledge of another individual makes all oaths breakable."

"Are there any precedents for any of this? Or are we charting new territories?"

"I do not believe that any of the lawful afterlives have ever shown up for the trial of such an obvious oathbreaker before. It's curious that they showed up for this one, I am trying to figure out exactly which precedent they are trying to set."

"The Court is not allowed to scrutinize the motivations of the representatives, as long as they are making a good faith effort to argue for their alignment. Boneyard v. Abyss -2362."

"We all know Boneyard v. Abyss, the comments of one representative do not constitute the Court scrutinizing your motivations.

"Alright, no precedents, which means we need a ruling. I'm tempted to rule that attempting to understand the nature of law on the level that Axis contends the decedent did is Lawful, but failing to understand the laws and forging ahead to break oaths in your own ignorance and without consulting any other sources is Chaotic. Any objections?"

"Axis is happy with a ruling of systemic Neutral for this decedent."

"Screw you and your entire alignment.

"The Abyss disagrees that this particular decedent has enough Law to balance out her Chaos—and even if she did, Law is not a balancing act. You cannot be extra lawful to make up for a few oaths broken.

"But we have no particular objections to the proposed ruling."

Nirvana doesn't usually argue for True Neutral. Most outer planes are restrictive; they don't want to take people who don't match their alignment, and judges very rarely sort a decedent somewhere whose representative objects. Nirvana and the Evil planes are an exception. Hell because anyone can be a paving stone, The Abyss and Abaddon because anyone can be a meal. Pharasma doesn't like sorting many people True Neutral, so even if that's what the judge rules, he'll open up debate again, using a lower standard of determination.

All of this means that Nirvana would rather sort someone into Axis or the Maelstrom than reopen the ruling if they're evil—but Axis is the one pushing for this. And the decedent probably would prefer Axis to the Maelstrom. So,

"Nirvana has no objections to the ruling or the judgement of True Neutral, your Honor."

Elysium watches Nirvana. The representative from Elysium doesn't quite understand why someone would prefer Axis to the Maelstrom, but Elysium understands Nirvana, and makes the same inferences about Axis' actions.

Part of Chaotic Good is understanding that not everyone agrees on how to after-live.

"Elysium concurs with Nirvana, your Honor."

"True Neutral means Axis can use the relaxed standards under Shizuru v. Asmodeus, undated to argue for Lawful Neutral.

"I don't think it makes sense to sort an oathbreaker into Axis, but it's funny enough to imagine it happening that I'll concur."

"Your honor, if we sort the decedent into a lawful afterlife, that means the argument Axis and Nirvana advanced earlier this trial about the second-order effects of the decedent's suicide would no longer be true. If the decedent is lawful, she must also be evil."

"Hold on, the argument you're advancing is—that since the decedent's destination will be scried, if she ends up in a Lawful afterlife, that the Osirian government will say 'oh look, she made a Lawful, no need to change anything'? She still died, and the Osirian government dislikes Hell just as much as it dislikes the Chaotic afterlives."

"The Evil afterlives would be contradictory, the Lawful afterlives would be contradictory, the Chaotic afterlives would be contradictory, the Good afterlives would be contradictory. This is one of the reasons that the second-order effects should have been ignored entirely. And without them, the decedent's death would be considered an Evil act."

"The second-order effects don't depend on the afterlife sorting, they depend on the death. The afterlife sorting would be persuasive, but not enough to convince or dismiss the death from the considerations of Osirian lawmakers.

"Besides, we already ruled on that—why not bring it up then? Because you're grudgingly okay with the Maelstrom winning this case but not Axis."

"The court is not allowed—"

"Yes, yes, we already did Boneyard v. Abyss -2362. Axis, The Abyss, stop pulling barely relevant precedents in order to snipe at each other. I'm ruling True Neutral.

"Now we proceed to questions of usefulness as raw planar material. I'm not sure she'd be remarkably valuable to The Boneyard as either a psychopomp or a childcare worker."

"Your Honor, Nirvana has an excellent track record at turning judged-True Neutral petitioners into valuable members of the Neutral Good Outer Planes. We would find this decedent in particular as valuable as anyone sorted Neutral Good, as we believe she ought to have been." 

The Abyss doesn't have a leg to stand on, here. There's no lawyer training system in The Abyss, no formal process for being assigned to cases. The representatives tend to either be minor demons who want a break from avoiding being eaten, or who are trying to accrue slaves or food in order to stop being minor demons.

Eating a soul doesn't count as useful raw planar material, sadly, Pharasma v. Abaddon 1021. Oh well. Might as well try to catch some sleep.

"The decedent is an oathbreaker. I'm certain we could make use of her."

"Axis wants this decedent.

"Axis is not about following rules for rules sake. Axis is about following rules because it makes sense to have rules. Most people who make Axis don't fully understand that. Most petitioners spend their first 200 years unlearning obedience to a monarch, or chasing perfectionism by abiding by a particular ruleset, or following the incentives that rulers have put in place. Then they spend the next 200 learning how to decide on one's own rules, and following them, and failing to get it right, and trying again.

"This petitioner did a bad job. She broke an oath. If she did that in Axis, today, it would harm the fabric of the plane. But a full quarter of petitioners in Axis end up having to recant an oath they made poorly, in their first 500 years of learning. We have methods for helping them do so in minimally destructive ways.

"But she's still ahead of the average petitioner we receive. She's already thinking in the right terms, even if she's often wrong."

"Alright. I can't tell if you've convinced me or just convinced me that Pharasma v. Calistria should be overturned. But I'll rule. This court finds Safira" sigh "Lawful Neutral."

Miracle. The judge disappears from atop the pile of stones fashioned as his chair; the stones beneath pop away, one at a time, each delayed by a sixth of a round or so from the one above it.

Althur, no longer technically Nirvana's representative, waits until everyone else has popped away, except Axis.

Orinthal waits for everyone, except Nirvana, to leave as well. They expected Nirvana's representative to have a question or two.

"How does Nirvana select representatives?"

"People volunteer for a training program, then once we are trained, there are always volunteers for every trial. Most people self-select for trials they're good at, starting with easier ones or impossible ones at the start of their career and closing in on closer ones as they get better. We usually decide by consensus, in the group of volunteers, which of the volunteers is the best choice.

"Or, in the rare cases where no one volunteers or consensus can't be reached, there are a number of ex-lawyers who make the executive decision on who to send."

"And how do you think Axis decides who to send?"

"Probably some market mechanism. But you can't possibly, even in Axis, have enough liquidity to have prediction markets on who will do the best job for every single decedent."

"For the closer trials we do, but you're right, we don't have a prediction market on every decedent. For even more decedents, we have prediction markets on where they'll end up. I did start a market on her fate and will make a bit of money on that, since a few people bet against my ability to win this trial. But beyond that, we have—incentives for getting people into Axis. Fractions of impact payments are earmarked for the representative. Fractions of wages are earmarked for each representative. They fade out over time, and they are typically a small fraction of the total cost.

"But I wasn't lying when I said this one was valuable to Axis. I wouldn't be surprised if she's a demigod of some unexplored area of—what is a valid oath, how do you behave to prevent people from systematically and unfairly exploiting oaths, in a thousand years. Or she'll go off in some other direction that I can't predict."

"That's almost Nirvanian, you know. 'This person didn't do a great job in life but they deserve a second chance in their afterlife.'

"I hope they can heal in Axis properly."

"Not everything in existence worth doing is healing."

Plane Shift.

It can be hard to do other things until you have, though.

Plane Shift.