"I don't understand how you -- how Nirvana -- can spend so many resources trying to win cases you know you have no chance in. I don't think anyone deserves to suffer in Hell either, but fruitlessly fighting for someone who tortured three slaves to death or murdered a child or spent her life Maledicting paladins doesn't actually help anyone when you're never going to win."

"Just because it's unlikely for us to win cases like that doesn't mean it's impossible. In re Javert, 4716 -- and yes, it's still a victory if someone goes to Axis instead of Hell."

"I don't need a case citation, and frankly that particular case was ambiguous enough that I can't fault Nirvana's actions. The fact that it's theoretically possible to win cases like that doesn't mean that, on the margin, this is a good use of resources."

"I'm not asking you to show up."

Menas Karam was sixty-five years old at the age of his death. A court-assistant by trade, he's familiar with the top several guesses about the form and structure of afterlife judgments. 

On Golarion, he had enough sway with the judges that he could nearly always persuade them to go along with his suggestions. His best guess is that he won't be able to get away with that sort of thing here. Spinning balls of gears have no respect for men like him.

"Do you know your name?"

"Menas Karam, senior court-assistant in the the courts of the Whitemarch Prefecture in Taldor."

"Do you know where you are?"

"Dead, presumably."

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

"Yes." Contrary to what you seem to think, I'm not an idiot.

"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."

"Then we shall begin."

"Your Honor, Hell moves that the defendant be stipulated as Evil, and that we move on to considering the question of his systemic alignment."

"As much as the Abyss hates to agree with anything Hell proposes, this case does seem pretty unambiguous. We concur."

"Nirvana objects, Your Honor."

"Very well. The advocates for all interested parties may state their case."

"Your Honor.

"Throughout his career as a court-assistant, the defendant on multiple occasions knowingly attempted to secure the conviction of persons he believed to be innocent, for personal gain. Framing innocent people for crimes is evil, In Re Togami, 3629.

"Furthermore, on two occasions, the defendant was involved in a murder. In one case, he personally killed someone, while in the other case, he conspired with another person to kill someone. Murdering innocent people is well-established to be Evil -- Hell v. Cain, -7293, Abyss v. Canner, 3944, among others. Furthermore, there are no mitigating circumstances due to the defendant's motive or beliefs: in the first incident, he murdered someone due to resentment over this person exposing his usage of improper procedure, resulting in him being penalized at work, while in the second incident, he was attempting to frame an innocent third party in order to further support his revenge against his first victim.

"When other court-assistants determined that he was responsible for committing multiple murders, he assaulted them in an attempt to cover up his crimes. 

"Throughout his life, even to the point when he was executed, he never demonstrated the slightest amount of remorse for his actions. He asserted repeatedly that his greatest regret was failing to properly ensure that his plan was successful.

"Your Honor, Hell understands that some cases are morally ambiguous or complicated. This is not one of them."

"Seriously, this guy is a complete scoundrel."

"Your Honor, Nirvana respectfully disagrees with this assessment.

"It's true that Menas falsified evidence. However, in many cases, he expressed the sentiment that he was merely ensuring that he could secure a conviction against someone who was genuinely guilty, but who for whatever reason could not be convicted solely on the basis of their own testimony under Zone of Truth. While falsifying evidence is certainly an unLawful activity, it is not inherently an Evil one, In re Avadonia, 1983. Although some of those that he falsified evidence against were in fact innocent, in cases where there was no self-deception, the intentions of petitioners are evaluated primarily on the basis of their reasonably justified factual beliefs. In re Harmonia, 4571.

"The two deaths he was responsible for are admittedly more complicated, but not necessarily Evil. This court has recognized that killing people can sometimes be a Neutral or even a Good act. In re Sosiel, 4713, among many others.

"Nirvana's position is that in this case, there were several mitigating circumstances that render this act, if not Good, at least non-Evil. First of all, the defendant was primarily motivated by revenge. While not Good, this motivation is not Evil either -- Calistria v. Abyss, -2693. Second of all, in the case of the first killing, the defendant had been struck by a stray crossbow bolt less than a minute before he killed the victim. Thus, he could possibly have conceptualized his action as self-defense. Third of all, the defendant took steps to mitigate the harms from his actions. For example, he chose to adopt the son of the first man he killed, raising him alongside his own children."

"...You don't believe any of that."

"An advocate's state of belief about the merit of their arguments has no bearing on the outcome of the proceedings. Hell v. Heaven, -8301."

"I concur. Please stick to litigating the actual case at hand."

"Your Honor, whether Nirvana believes their 'argument' or not, it is nevertheless deeply flawed.

"First of all, murdering someone for Neutral reasons is still murder, which is an Evil act. Committing Evil acts for Evil reasons is more evil than committing Evil acts for Neutral reasons, but both are still Evil. 

"Second of all, at the point when the defendant committed the first murder, all three of the people who could possibly have fired the crossbow were already unconscious, a fact which the defendant was aware of. Self-defense is not Evil, if there are no alternatives. Shooting an unconscious body because they could theoretically have hit you with a crossbow bolt a minute earlier is a different matter.

"Third of all, Nirvana proposes that the defendant adopting his victim's son is a mitigating factor in this case. Leaving aside the question of whether adopting a single orphan is sufficient to counterweight murder, the defendant subsequently attempted to frame this adopted son for the second murder he committed. Hell also wishes to note that Nirvana has not provided any such 'mitigating circumstances' for the second murder."

"This does seem to be a fairly compelling argument. Nirvana, do you have a response, or should I rule on this question?"

"Nirvana has a response, Your Honor.

"Even if this court accepts the defendant's theory that the two deaths resulting from the defendant's actions were Evil, it is nonetheless the case that the defendant also committed many Good acts. He spent the vast majority of his forty-five year career helping pursue justice and promote public safety, which is Good. Before the actions referenced by Hell, he spent years raising his adopted son, treating him no differently from his own children. He freely sponsored his children's education and encouraged them to be virtuous members of society.

"Furthermore, the principles primarily motivating the defendant were not Evil. In addition to his dedication to justice, he repeatedly expressed a desire to pursue perfection, which is associated with Lawful Neutral."

"Does Axis have a position on the question of whether this man is Lawful Neutral?"

"In perfect honesty, Your Honor, Axis's current impression is that this man is unambiguously Evil. While we would respect a ruling of Lawful Neutral should you choose to issue it, we do not believe it would reflect the reality of the situation."

"Hell maintains the position that murdering innocent people and framing other innocent people for your murder is Evil, no matter how you try to spin it."

"Hell ignores the multiple examples I raised of Good actions by the defendant."

"The mere fact that someone has committed both Good and Evil actions does not necessarily make them Neutral. This legal theory would imply that nearly every person who ever lived was morally Neutral, which is obviously ridiculous. Furthermore, the best examples Nirvana has managed to come up with for why the defendant is not evil is that he adopted a child, whom he subsequently framed for murder, and that he worked for the courts, a job in which he repeatedly framed innocent people, at least some of whom he knew were innocent."

"We don't know for certain whether he knew they were innocent. It's clear that in at least some cases he believed they were guilty, and that his actions were for one reason or another necessary to ensure a conviction."