Heaven does have this mild preference that its allies not make extremely disingenuous arguments, but at least this time it's someone who is explicitly Chaotic doing it!

Besides, he might not be joking. Let's see his case.

Making non-disingenuous arguments has a cost measured in lives! Heaven should be less precious. Iomedae wouldn't approve.

"You may be thinking, 'Clarence, but Cayden Cailean is the god of carnival, the set-aside time for revelry and the inversion of hierarchies and the violation of social norms and profanation of the sacred, which creates time for rest and joy, and opens space for people to question these things in their normal life. I have read through all the information about the decedent's life and I don't think he had fun once.' Granted. That is not the aspect of Cayden Cailean with which the decedent resonates.

"There is another aspect to Cayden Cailean. He is the god of bravery. But what kind of bravery? Is he Trudd, god of the strong who use their strength to protect others? Is he Kurgess, god of pushing your limits and seeing what you can do? No!

"Cayden Cailean is the god of a teenage girl with a husband who hits her, who flees in the night with no plan because anywhere is better than here. He is the god of a slave who jumps off a ship because death is better than losing your freedom. He is the god of peasants assembling with pitchforks and shovels to defend their town against bandits with swords and bows. He is the god whose clerics, for two thousand years, have led the efforts to rescue people from Nidal, who have gone in again and again knowing that they would get caught and Maledicted to Xovaikon, because some things are more important than your own life. When someone prays, Somebody up there help me, I'm so scared, Cayden hears.

"He is the god of desperation and of hope and of some things mattering more than your own life. 

"He is the god of a man who read Lawful Evil and still waged a one-man war against Asmodeus. He is the god of a man who does not hope for Elysium-- does not hope for Heaven-- does not hope even for Axis. Read his mind, my esteemed colleagues. He hopes only to make the Abyss, where he might have a chance to scrape out a territory against millions of demons older and crueler and more cunning than he, which which he will continue his war against Asmodeus.

"Many do Good with hope of reward in the afterlife, and that is noble. But the King in Irons-- no less than the Caydenite who infiltrates Nidal-- does Good with no expectation of reward, and that is the most Good of all. In re Rabia al Basri. --I have copies. It's not a standard cite.

"Yet."

...um. Wow.

She's aware of Clarence. Her law firm is actually assisting him on a case winding through appeals court, in which Hell is suing him for arguing petitioners were Neutral Evil. The partners hope it will overturn the precedent that lawyers need to argue for their own afterlife.

But this is the first time she's seen him work and she's in awe at a master. She never imagined that Chaotic Good people could be that good at scamming. 

Legal speeches are art!

What a beautiful argument. Such a shame that it isn't even remotely true; if he hadn't hoped for Heaven, he would have - well, done approximately what he did, a man does not give in to threats simply because the threatener is a god, but he would have carried out fewer acts of petty goodness and possibly would have fled cross-continent instead of doing to the Worldwound. Or cross-plane.

... Also, of course, anyone who can't understand the joy of a well-planned scheme granting you supremacy over your enemies is frankly ignorant of the greater things in life. It's not as though getting drunk is more fun than conquest.

Ah, one of the competent Good lawyers.

"The representative from Hell says that the decedent is Lawful. How, then, is he Lawful? Did he obey the laws of states he was in and acknowledge their authority over him? He did not; indeed he took great pains to tell those in power that he didn't accept their authority over him. Did he have filial piety? Certainly not; he had contempt for his parents. Did he loyally serve the country of his birth? No. Did he respect the normal hierarchies of society about which Erastil is so concerned? No. Did he keep his oaths? No. Not only did he break his oaths of loyalty to Asmodeus and Cheliax, it was the defining moment of his life that he did. Oathbreaking was one of his 'myriad daily actions': he made and strategically broke oaths in order to preserve a Neutral Evil alignment. In re McNulty: 'A Lawful alignment requires respect for Law in trivial matters and not only in great.' I will note that not only do the decedent's actions show a lack of respect for oaths but also defiance of the fundamental order of Pharasma's Creation, which is Chaotic in nature, in re Evans-Verres-Potter.

"What does the representative from Hell have to say for himself? The decedent's personal code. This court has historically been suspicious of personal-code-based cases for Law, in re Kiyamvir. The reason is simple. If the decedent disrespects his parents, disrespects his leaders, disrespects those in authority over him, disrespects the hierarchy of his society, disrespects the state, disrespects the natural order of the universe itself-- well, it takes one Abyss of a personal code to overcome all of that. 

"The fact that a decedent predictably behaves in a certain way has not historically been considered sufficient to establish the decedent as having a personal code, In re Lehnsherr. Cayden Cailean himself would be Lawful, if all that was required was predictably murdering slavers. The court must weigh alternate explanations for the decedent's actions. A code must not be a set of preferences, however strongly held; it must bind the decedent to do things that they do not wish to do.

"What, then, is the decedent's personal code? He acts in the best interests of his subordinates. He takes vengeance on their behalf. He would be loyal to an authority, if he found one that he felt was worthy of his authority. He refuses to betray those he thinks of as his family. 

"Ladies, gentlemen, and honorable entities, that is many things. It is a determination to do his job well. It is respect, and friendship, and cooperation, and loyalty. It is, in some cases, love.

"It is not a personal code.

"Of course the decedent thinks of it as a personal code. The decedent grew up in a society intended to convince him that love was weak and pathetic and shameful, and he fears being weak and pathetic and shameful more than anything else. He couldn't admit to himself that the reason he wanted what was best for his subordinates-- that he was willing to sacrifice what he saw as his interests to do right by them-- was that he cared for them, and in some cases that he loved them.

"If this were merely his personal code, he would have sacrificed his subordinates as soon as it was convenient for him to do so, as he did his so-called principle against oathbreaking.

"He didn't sacrifice his subordinates' interests because he took their interests as his own-- which, I need not remind this court, matches well to the definition of love laid out fifteen thousand years ago in in re Valentine."

This lawyer is out of his mind, but in a very strategically useful way. The King-In-Irons will remain silent.

"My esteemed colleague from the Maelstrom mentioned the Newton test for atonement. As we all know, the Newton test has five prongs:

1. Feeling regret for previous actions.
2. Taking responsibility for previous actions.
3. Changing relationships with those affected, such as by seeking vengeance or forgiveness. 
4. Attempting to repair the consequences of previous actions insofar as this is possible. 
5. Reliably and consistently changing behavior. 

"To the extent that all five criteria are met, a decedent's previous actions are not held against their present alignment.

"The decedent regrets his previous veneration of Asmodeus. The decedent takes responsibility for his actions to an almost pathological degree. The decedent attempted to change his relationships by fleeing Cheliax and by ending his relationships with previous Evil adventuring parties. The decedent attempted to repair the consequences of his previous actions through waging a war against Asmodeus. The decedent has reliably and consistently changed his behavior by waging war against Asmodeus. He passes the Newton test for much of the Evil he committed in his life.  

"The decedent didn't merely refrain from Evil, but also engaged in active Good. He freed slaves. He rescued people from Cheliax. He denied Cheliax valuable weapons and magical items. He killed people who were causing harm to others, in the reasonable expectation that it would cause less harm to be done. He attempted to minimize the harm he caused to innocents, and his actions were consistently justified on a straightforward Leurodorfell analysis. The portion of his life that the decedent is straightforwardly proud of is consistently Good."

Normally at this point he would spend an hour or so talking about the various people the decedent had benefited at significant personal cost, but last time it happened Hell sued and apparently this is considered "prejudicial" and it "provides no information since freeing slaves is already known to be Good." Whatever.

"And the rest? What of the decedent's banditry? What of his suppression of tax revolts? What of his theft? The Newton test has never required that a decedent immediately become fully Good, but has acnowledged that, due to mortal frailty, atonement may be an extended process of gradual learning. In re Skywalker: 'the court takes into account a sustained trajectory towards a particular alignment that a reasonable entity would expect to continue.' The decedent has shown a gradual disillusionment with Evil over the course of his life. For example, even before he initiated his war with Cheliax, he consistently rejected work that involved harm to the weak and vulnerable and sought out work that involved challenging the powerful. Though ruthless, he was never cruel out of carelessness or for emotional satisfaction. Later, he only accepted work that he sincerely believed would advance his war with Cheliax and thus, as I previously discussed, would have Good consequences on net. Even later, he gave up all work other than his war with Cheliax. 

"The decedent doesn't think of this process as growth towards Good. When he thinks about his aversion to harming the weak, he thinks 'it's beneath me' and 'I want a challenge' and 'peasants don't have useful resources' and 'I don't want to waste tools that might be useful to me.' When he thinks about his aversion to cruelty, he thinks 'being carried away by emotion is pathetic' and 'I am too much in control to let something happen that I don't approve of.' The decedent grew up in an Asmodean society and believes that mercy is weakness and weakness is wrong. And yet the decedent has always been merciful.

"Hell and the Maelstrom both make much of the decedent's association with an antipaladin. I will point out, from my previous argument, that the antipaladin was the decedent's friend. When the decedent says 'it would hardly be to my benefit for him to be weaker', what the decedent means is 'I am attempting to pursue the best interests of someone I care about.' Navigating friendship with an Evil person is complex even for a cleric of Iomedae. And yet true friendship has long been seen as Good, in re Aristotle, in re Lewis, as is specifically refusing to abandon a friend who is Evil, in re Derek Black. I do not suggest that this renders the decedent's actions Good, but I consider it an ameliorating factor.

"In short: the decedent grew up in Cheliax. Zon-Kuthon vs. Lajariutza,  -5257 AR: making it harder not to hurt people makes it more revealing of the petitioner's personal character when they refrain from hurting people. Over the course of his life, he maintained a 'sustained trajectory that a reasonable entity would expect to continue' towards Chaotic Good. In the last years of his life, he behaved in a straightforwardly Chaotic Good fashion, setting aside his rationalizations that he is Lawful Evil. A straightforward Newton analysis suggests the decedent is Chaotic Good. Thank you for your time." 

None of this is true but he can't deny it without hurting his afterlife. An unfortunate puzzle.

Heaven is glad Clarence is on their team.

These are astonishingly weak arguments hidden behind good rhetoric. If even Elysium's best lawyer can't do better than this...

Heh. Heh. Heh.

Showoff. 

Oh no it's her turn! She says what Clarence told her to say:

"Nirvana concurs with Elysium, but considers the decedent to have sufficient respect for his personal code that he qualifies as systematically Neutral. In particular, we believe that openly telling governments that he doesn't respect their laws is Lawful in nature, in re Potter Gale. However, it doesn't outweigh his refusal to follow the laws of any government, however legitimately constituted, if those laws told him to do something he didn't want to do. Thus the decedent is systematically Neutral."

Disbelievingly: "open defiance of the law is Lawful now?"

"We will have order in the court and no interruptions."

Then she says the part she came up with herself. 

"I think Elysium neglected one important aspect of the decedent's life. The creation of art is prima facie Good, in re: Keats and other citations too numerous to list. There is an often-overlooked aspect of In re: Wilde, which is the judge's finding that a life sufficiently devoted to the aesthetic counts as an artistic creation in and of itself, that is, a form of performance art. I propose to this court that the decedent's life was sufficiently lived for the aesthetic as to count as an artistic creation. I submit as evidence the decedent's standard speech when he grants slaves their freedom, which I believe shows his commitment to beauty. The decedent was known to value the elegance, showmanship, and presentation of his plans as much as their chance of success. 

"Art is particularly Good when it 'points to the Good that is beyond itself,' in re: Keats. The decedent intended to express numerous Good values, such as the empowerment of the oppressed and the futility of Evil, and to counter Cheliaxian propaganda through his actions. 

"Further, in re: Califia clearly establishes that BDSM is a Chaotic Good activity, with Hell's representative saying that two equals playacting dominance and submission is 'an inexcusable insult to the glory of our lord Asmodeus', 'a perversion of that tyranny which Hell holds most dear,' and 'a blasphemy against the very hierarchy of Hell Itself.' I propose that this ruling be extended to find that parodying Asmodeanism in a way calculated to insult and blaspheme against Asmodeus, such that it causes him shame and humiliation, is itself a Chaotic and Good activity. What could be more of a parody than using Asmodeanism as a justification for overthrowing the tyranny of Asmodeus? What could be more of an insult to Asmodeus's pride than for a mortal to call himself Asmodeus's superior-- and to use Asmodeanism as the justification for doing so? 

"Therefore, the decedent is engaged in Chaotic and Good myriad daily actions that Elysium failed to mention." 

When Nirvana sends lawyers they're not sending their best. 

She wonders if in re: Wilde is going to be overturned in appeal for this case. Probably not. Maybe next time a Norgorber cleric is facing judgment she can try to argue that con artistry is a form of art and therefore Good. 

That could be worse. Hopefully Heaven is intelligent enough to send someone competent.

"'Ladies, gentlemen, and assorted honorable entities,'" the tyranny demon mocks, "we are gathered to judge a thief, bandit, robber, murderer, torturer, and oathbreaker. I've no doubt that some of you lot will try to claim that all that's Lawful and Good. It isn't. In re Barrow, in re Willie, in re Babylon. We are here to judge a man who Charmed a farmer into letting him into his house then slit his throat while he slept to steal his purse. We are here to judge a man who robbed and murdered his way across his homeland, then did the same thing to a different country the moment he crossed the border. And we're here to judge a man who never really stopped doing any of these things. My 'colleague' from Hell has explained all the murdering he did, starting when he was a child, but - as far as I can tell - her argument that this was Lawful murdering, instead of the normal Chaotic kind, it's not based on them being his slaves, it's not based on him being under orders, it's just that murdering someone is perfectly fine in Cheliax as long as you get away with it. You can carve a kid into pieces and as long as you hide the evidence well enough, nobody gives a shit. And here I thought it was a Lawful country!"

"Now, this isn't a very complicated trial. It's about someone who spent his life killing people. Mostly he killed people who he disliked, but he didn't dislike them because they were Evil, he disliked them because he had a grudge against them. He was fine with working with a demoniac antipaladin of Socothbenoth, Demon Lord Of Getting Away With Shit By Being Funny, Whose obedience is 'ruin someone's day socially without them knowing you did it!' He was a cultist of Norgorber, and was completely fine working with a Norgorber priestess who was a paranoid, mad, murderous enchanter, alchemist and thief just because it worked out for him. He prayed to Baphomet because Baphomet hates Asmodeus and he hates Asmodeus and so that meant they could be besties, which mocks the idea that he ever followed the laws of anywhere - Absalom bans demon lord worship. Hate is Evil; in re Hall, in re Mount, and hate was why he did, well, everything. Hate and greed - Abadar v Mammon, in re Wilde - and pride - Asmodeus v Aroden, in re Wilde.

"Now, there's people who say that he 'redeemed himself', in re Newton. And I say - sure! He atoned, in re Newton. From Lawful Evil to Chaotic Evil. He regretted working for Asmodeus because Asmodeus screwed him over, he "took responsibility" by screwing Asmodeus back over, he "changed his relationship" with Asmodeus by trying to murder his mooks, he tried to repair the consequences of his actions by killing Asmodeans, and he sure changed his behavior from working for Asmodeus to working against Asmodeus. But holding a grudge isn't actually enough to atone - in re Binghe, you can atone from any alignment to any other alignment. He repented of being an Asmodean, but to repent to a Good alignment you have to actually try to do good. Did he try to resurrect his old dead mentor, who he helped stone to death? Nope! Did he try to do something about the souls of his murder victims? Abyss no. He tried to fight Asmodeus because he hated him. Chaotic Evil, Chaotic Evil."

"My colleage in Elysium says he did good. Maybe he did a little! But he sure didn't try. Last year this court tried we tried Cloden Dever for being evil, we decided his 'myriad daily actions' made him Neutral Evil, and he went to Hell. He died because the decedent decided to set the mansion he was in on fire. Why? Because a Chelish noblewoman owned it - or, uh, had owned it before the decedent killed her! Was that Cloden? No, he was one of her slaves who was locked in a room for punishment. Alex here broke into the cell, murdered his guards, saw him there chained to a wall, and went out to go kill Asmodeans. He didn't think about Cloden Dever. He thought about murdering Asmodeans. This is just one example of him putting his desire to hurt Asmodeus over any desire to save slaves - every time he raided a Chelish estate, there was some Cloden Dever, some slave or serf or paid hireling who'd never done anything to him, who never signed up for a fight and never wanted to fight, and who the decedent made "collateral damage" because he didn't care enough not to. Has he saved slaves? Sure! He's hired them to spy on their masters, promised them their freedom if they did, and then not gone back on it. You can be Chaotic Evil and sometimes keep your word - especially if it gets you something. Which this did, because seventy percent of these slaves kept working for him afterwards. He figured he'd get something out of freeing them, so he did. Ask him what he sacrificed for Good, and you've got nothing that was an actual sacrifice."

"The decedent is Evil because he never cared enough not to be. And the decedent is chaotic because when you spend your entire life on treachery, theft, and flat-out ignoring any law you dislike, you're chaotic. That's my opening statement."

Ah, he sees that worshipping Baphomet Carefully Outside Absalom City Limits did in fact pay off.

Now this was the opposition she expected to run into.

Oh, sure, he gets to include humanizing personal stories.