"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."

"Does Your Honor wish to ask the defendant about this matter?"

There are various procedural objections Nirvana could, theoretically, raise here.

However, objecting to a completely reasonable question is typically viewed as very strong evidence that the answer to the question would contradict the advocate's position. 

A perfectly Lawful outsider could, theoretically, pledge not to consider such objections as evidence, and then genuinely not consider them as such. The Boneyard's judges are not perfectly Lawful, and furthermore have made no such pledges.

Heaven and Nirvana have analyzed their trial records, and it's almost never worth it, to try to stop a petitioner from answering a question like this. In most cases, the answer isn't harmful anyway; most people's internal narratives of their own actions make them look better, not worse.

Nirvana is silent.

"Very well. Menas Karam, please tell us whether you were aware that some of the people you falsified evidence against were innocent. Before you answer, I remind you that petitioners in this courtroom are under the influence of a truth-compelling enchantment."

"Any chance we could stick the weird cat under that enchantment as well?"

"That's out of order."

"Nirvana would be happy to negotiate a new set of trial rules that enjoined advocates against making arguments that they assessed as false, provided that such a rule were fairly applied to all advocates."

"That's out of order. Can you all please just let the defendant answer the question."

"I don't see why it matters. A court-assistant's duty is to ensure convictions, and I am a master of my craft. If that means a few innocent people end up in jail, that's a small price to pay for perfection."

"..........Can you elaborate further on that fascinating position?"

"It's very simple. Once the constabulary's investigators have handed someone over to us, our success is measured by whether the judge ultimately determines that the individual is guilty. The more frequently they are condemned, the more successful we are. As a court-assistant, I strive to be perfect, to never allow someone to walk free. Caring about whether someone is innocent or guilty could only make me worse at my task."

"See? Caring about perfection and personal excellence is a very Irorite sentiment. Lawful neutral."

"Worship of a god, let alone aligning oneself with some of that god's principles, is insufficient to show that one shares that god's alignment. In re Miyazaki, 1184."

"Listening to obviously stupid arguments is a waste of time. In re Annoying Cat, 4723."

"You just made that citation up."

"Please refrain from citing cases that don't actually exist.

"I am prepared to rule that Menas Karam is non-Good. It currently seems highly likely that he is Evil, but I acknowledge that further evidence may come out that would point away from that conclusion. I ask all parties who wish to present their arguments on Karam's systemic alignment to now do so."

"Axis respectfully abstains."

"The man spent nearly his entire life subverting both local laws and the very concept of a Lawful alignment. He made up evidence that didn't exist, repeatedly lied about it, and used these actions to subvert what is otherwise a mostly Lawful legal system. He's chaotic."

"Your Honor, it's true that this man sometimes used dishonesty and other conventionally unLawful tactics as a means to advance his goals. But it's important to examine what those goals actually were. 

"The defendant was acting as part of a Lawful system, acting according to a strictly regimented code. It is true that this code was not always in compliance with local laws, but this does not inherently make it unLawful. In re Odalia. Deception, too, does not necessarily make someone unLawful, Abaddon v. Mephistopheles, -9301, and to the extent this court finds that deception is unLawful, it was mitigated by the defendant's open acknowledgement that he uses deception in some cases. Regardless, the defendant's strict alignment of his actions with a regimented code is more than sufficient for a finding of Law.

"As a less significant point, the defendant was also deeply motivated by the idea of excellence and self-perfection, and has stated such in this very courtroom. As the ocelot stated, this is a Lawful motivation.

"Menas Karam is Lawful Evil, and by rights his soul belongs to Hell."

Bellina hates arguing for Abaddon. Abaddon means giving up. It is vanishingly unlikely that any soul condemned to Hell or the Abyss could ever be redeemed, but not impossible; Nocticula was a god, and even she was able to find her way to Chaotic Neutral.

But if she never argues for Abaddon, some small fraction of souls that would have rather had oblivion will go to Hell. Souls that are judged Neutral Evil are given the chance to choose between the Evil afterlives, and Bellina would never will a soul to suffer if it would prefer otherwise.

"Your Honor, if you find the defendant is Evil, it is clearly most appropriate to render a decision for Neutral Evil. It is true that the defendant was attempting to act in accordance with a rigid code, and that he was driven to pursue perfection. However, it is also true that he knowingly undermined the Lawful function of the courts by introducing forged evidence. Neither intent nor outcomes can fully determine someone's alignment.

"In this case, the defendant has served both Law and Chaos to a significant degree. Therefore, it would be most accurate to assign him to systemic Neutrality."

"Hell observes that Nirvana argued mere minutes ago that the defendant was clearly Lawful."

"Systemic alignment and moral alignment cannot necessarily be disconnected. Heaven v. Asmodeus."

"It's almost funny. Even in the afterlife, there are court-assistants who style themselves as needing to prove people 'innocent' no matter what. There are court-assistants like that in Taldor, but I hadn't realized that the advocates here would be every bit as desperate."

"Nirvana requests that the defendant only speak when answering questions posed by this court."

"Hell objects. Defendants often have important context on their own actions that the court is not necessarily aware of and may not think to ask directly about, as demonstrated in In re Ninio Bianchi among others."

"The defendant may speak on his own behalf, provided he does not disrupt the proceedings."

"...We want to hear if he has any more explanations for his actions."

It's irritating when the Abyss manages to beat you to something potentially important.

"Very well. I believe the actions most at issue in this case were the murder of Gregorien Caracies, the subsequent murder of Raibeart Hamnet and framing of Milites Caracies for his murder, and several hundred incidents of deliberately manipulating a trial with false evidence or subversions of the trial process. Is there anything you wish to share about those actions?"

...At least the judge is giving him an actual question rather than just an open-ended prompt??? With many people that would be worse but Menas seems like an exception.

"Gregorien Caracies was a fool with no understanding of what it meant to be a court-assistant. He was constantly fussing about ensuring that everyone had a chance to 'prove their innocence,' even when they were clearly guilty, and even when his efforts meant that the court system was substantially delayed.

"On the day of his death, he had convinced a local judge to levy a penalty against me for my conduct, merely because I had attempted to skip the formality of a Zone of Truth. Later, there was a small earthquake, and several buildings collapsed. When I returned to the site of the courthouse, I found him, as well as two others, unconscious and trapped inside a room. I realized that I had the chance to ensure that he would never interfere with my efforts again, and that he received what he deserved for his constant meddling efforts to prevent people from being convicted.

"In order to complete my revenge against the elder Caracies, I took in his son and raised him as my own. To kill Milites would result in him being sent to the same afterlife as his father, or possibly to the Boneyard, where in either case they would most likely be reunited. If I took in Caracies and trained him as a competent court-assistant, I could turn him against everything his father had willed. Unfortunately, he was as spineless and weak-willed as his father, and all my efforts proved for naught, save only that it seems exceedingly unlikely, at this point, that he will ever be reunited with his father. I therefore decided to complete my revenge on Gregorien Caracies, while simultaneously eliminating one of the few loose ends that could be traced back to me.

"I believe I have already explained the use of false evidence adequately, Your Honor. There is nothing more I wish to say."

She's met Gregorien Caracies. He showed up at a Nirvanan lawyer training nearly the moment he arrived, and wouldn't listen to anyone who told him that it might be a bad idea to rush into taking a trial over someone's immortal soul so soon after his own death. He's still in training, of course, but Bellina thinks he'll be a great lawyer someday.

None of this is relevant to the case at hand. No one deserves to suffer.

"Hell moves that this court declare the defendant Evil, as it should have done from the beginning."

"Nirvana objects. In Nirvana's view, a defendant's opinion of their own actions can have limited value to the determination of their alignment. For example, it is common for slaveholders to believe they did nothing wrong in owning slaves, and less common but not unheard of for people who are unambiguously Good-aligned to feel guilt over failing to donate all of their earnings to a temple, even if they were very charitable. Menas Karam's testimony should not be decisive."

"The Abyss thinks he's super evil even if you ignore literally everything he said."

"This court is prepared to render a verdict for Evil. However, there is still the entire question of his systemic alignment to decide."

"Fucking finally."

"Nirvana stands by our earlier position. If the defendant is evil, then he is specifically Neutral evil, and should go to Abaddon."

"If he so chooses, you mean."

"If he so chooses."

"If the defendant were Lawful or even Neutral, he wouldn't be going around constantly fucking up the legal system, duh."

The Abyssal demon is unusually competent, for a representative of the Abyss, even discounting the ones that show up to just yell "flesh" the whole trial. Most likely the Abyss believes they actually have a chance at this one.

Well. Even the best Abyssal demon-lawyers can rarely match Hell's skill.

"Your Honor.

"No one in this courtroom believes that the defendant is Lawful in the way that Axiomites are Lawful. It's true that he acted deceptively, and true that in some cases, he failed to follow the procedures set out by his government for his occupation.

"But that is far from the only factor that matters. 

"First, we must consider his philosophical convictions. We've heard a number of different accounts of his philosophy over the course of this trial, but a few things are clear. The defendant was dedicated to the pursuit of personal perfection. The defendant was dedicated to living up to his personal duties. And the defendant was dedicated to serving what he saw as the interests of the local authorities.

"Second, we must consider his occupation. The defendant was not merely an agent of Taldor, but of Taldor's courts. That fact shaped his conduct and behavior, both in the ordinary aspects of his day-to-day life and in the specific incidents that have been raised in this trial. In the vast majority of his Evil actions, the defendant wielded the law to serve his ends. Law turned to Evil is the essence of Lawful Evil.

"The objections raised by Nirvana and the Abyss are insufficient to counter these simple facts. They point to him having broken the law, but it is far from uncommon for petitioners to be judged Lawful despite this fact. They point to him having pursued revenge, but Calistria's status as goddess of revenge is hardly sufficient to mean that anyone who seeks vengeance is necessarily Chaotic. They point to him undermining the justice system, while ignoring that his actions were largely in the interest of maintaining the function of the justice system.

"They have no argument. They're just hoping that if they make the same point enough different ways, it'll stick."

"Your Honor, Nirvana does not contest that the defendant sometimes behaved Lawfully. Everyone sometimes behaves Lawfully. But-- it's easy to be Lawful when being Lawful is to your advantage. We need to consider the defendant's actions when being Lawful wasn't to his advantage.

"Even if this court finds that the defendant behaved Lawfully in attempting to frame innocent people for crimes they did not commit -- a legal theory that is tenuous at best -- we need to consider what happened in cases where he couldn't frame people for crimes. Take, for example, the murder of Gregorien Caracies. Due to Gregorien's status and reputation, it would have been relatively difficult for the defendant to frame him. But rather than even considering abandoning his goal, the defendant decided to handle this by murdering him at the first available opportunity.

"Working for the courts doesn't make him Lawful. Caring about perfection doesn't make him Lawful. What determines whether or not he is Lawful are his thoughts and deeds, and those prove that he was perfectly happy to abandon Lawfulness the moment it was inconvenient for him.

"The defendant isn't Lawful. He just finds it useful to pretend to be, sometimes."

"I believe I am ready to hand down my verdict. Menas Karam, do you have anything you wish to add?"

"No, Your Honor."

"On balance, there is significant evidence pointing in both directions for the defendant's systemic alignment. This court finds the defendant to be Neutral Evil."

"As per Pharasma v. Abaddon, -6124, the advocates for the Abyss and Hell may each make a statement to encourage the defendant to avail himself of the opportunity to choose their afterlife over Abaddon."

Nirvana's argued a thousand times for the right to argue for the merits of choosing Abaddon, and never been granted permission.

"Do you want to go to a boring-ass afterlife where you just have to listen to Asmodeus or Dispater or whoever all the time? That sounds like it would suck. Come to the Abyss, and if you beat up people well enough you'll be on top of the heap!"

"You have been presented with three options. Abaddon -- annihilation. The Abyss -- likely annihilation, and if not, an eternity surrounded by creatures like that one. Or Hell.

"If you choose Hell, and Asmodeus deems it fitting, you'll be as close as you can get to continuing your work. You'll have the chance to pursue perfection, and to advocate for those who deserve to be placed in Hell to find their rightful place. You'll have the chance to be part of something that matters, rather than being obliterated.

"The choice is yours."

"He can't promise you that, Asmodeus doesn't care what you want, he can turn you into a paving stone just because he thinks it would be funny--"

"That's out of order. But regardless, what reason would Hell have for refusing to make use of your clear and obvious talents?"

"Nirvana, that's out of order. Hell, you're also out of order, you get one statement even if Nirvana is violating procedure."

"Take that, suckers."

"That's out of order. Would literally every advocate except Axis stop flaunting the rules for no reason and let Menas Karam decide where he's going?"

He would choose Axis, if it were on offer. Irori's worshippers are tolerable; Abadar's aren't, but at least they're useful. He could probably be happy there, and -- he can't deny that any other choice carries risks.

It's not on offer, so how he feels about it is irrelevant.

The Abyss is right out. All the downsides of Abaddon, and even if he survives he'll, what, have the chance to go around bickering with demons for all eternity? It's a wonder anyone is willing to go there voluntarily.

Menas Karam is not an ignorant man; he knows that most petitioners in Hell suffer. He's sure most of the people he condemned to death would take Abaddon in a heartbeat, if it meant avoiding that. But--

--If he goes to Abaddon, that's it. Everything he's ever achieved is set in stone, and he'll never be anything more than that. In fifty years, people will barely remember him, no matter how perfect a court-assistant he was in life.

If he takes Hell's offer, at least he has a chance. He can advocate for Hell without having to pretend to care about the feelings of pathetic weaklings unable to stomach the idea of spinning evidence the way a judge wants to hear. 

Besides, Hell isn't stupid. They wouldn't waste someone as gifted as he is on being a paving stone.

"Your Honor, I accept Hell's proposition."

He's a fucking idiot but that doesn't mean he deserves what's going to happen to him.

"Very well. This concludes the trial of Menas Karam."