2: Arbitration Abyss

Case 1:The Wish-Gone-Wrong Dispute

  Part 1: Gathering Evidence
The players are tasked with preparing for the arbitration between two mortals squabbling over the shared ownership of a wish-granting artifact. Before the arbitration begins, they must investigate:   Interviewing the Mortals: Each mortal provides conflicting accounts of their agreement, revealing their selfish motives and hidden grudges. Reviewing the Contract: The devil’s contract has vague and deliberately misleading language, requiring players to piece together the truth by solving a logic puzzle or decoding infernal runes. Handling Obstructions: A smug devil lawyer from the Division of Fiendish Torts interferes, planting fake evidence to sway the arbitration.
Part 2: The Arbitration Hearing
The players attend a tense arbitration session, presided over by a bored but powerful Pit Fiend arbiter. They must present their findings while countering arguments from the mortals and the devil lawyer. Challenges include:   Celestial Intervention: An angelic emissary attempts to derail the arbitration, arguing that the artifact’s power is too dangerous to remain in infernal hands. Legal Maneuvering: The devil lawyer exploits procedural loopholes, forcing players to think creatively or stall for time while they counter his points. Disruptive Mortals: The mortals bicker incessantly, refusing to accept compromises and escalating the tension in the room.
Part 3: The Artifact’s Judgment
As the arbitration nears its conclusion, the artifact itself—imbued with sentience—manifests to plead its case, claiming it doesn’t wish to be owned by anyone. The players must:   Decide Ownership: Argue for one mortal, split the artifact’s control, or side with the artifact’s independence, each option carrying consequences for their reputation in the ICA. Deal with Fallout: If the players can’t find a solution that satisfies the Pit Fiend arbiter, the hearing may spiral into chaos, including a magical battle as the artifact lashes out.   The outcome determines whether the players are seen as effective arbitrators—or as incompetent agents who fumbled a high-profile case.  

Case 2: The Fiddler's Feud

Scenario: A devil, Mepharion the Melodic, accuses a mortal boy of cheating in a musical contest to win his prized golden fiddle. The boy insists he won fairly and has the trophy to prove it. Both parties have appealed to the ICA for arbitration.   Three Parts:   Interviews and Investigation: Mepharion's Claim: The devil insists the boy used underhanded tricks, such as summoning celestial interference or invoking an obscure contract loophole. The Boy's Defense: The boy says he just practiced and performed better, but his story has inconsistencies, hinting he may have exploited a devil's oversight. The Golden Fiddle: The players examine the fiddle, discovering it has subtle enchantments linked to the contest's magical terms.   Arbitration Hearing: The devil provides dramatic, exaggerated evidence of the boy’s “cheating,” while the boy counters with charm and appeals to fairness. The players must interpret the contract and address ambiguities. For example, one clause says the fiddle's winner must be “the most deserving,” which can be argued both ways. Mepharion may attempt to intimidate the players or manipulate the arbitration process using legal loopholes.   Final Ruling: The players decide the case, but their choice has consequences: Rule for the boy: Mepharion fumes and threatens to appeal, escalating tensions. Rule for Mepharion: The boy storms out, swearing vengeance. Find a compromise: Both parties begrudgingly accept, but neither is happy. A twist: The fiddle itself is revealed to be cursed, its enchantments compelling both parties to endlessly dispute ownership.  

Case 3: The Margravine’s Fallout

Scenario: The arbitration concludes with a case directly tied to the players' actions in “Filing Fiasco.” A mortal who was affected by Margravine Zyxariel’s altered contract has filed a formal grievance. The devil responsible (Zyxariel herself or one of her proxies) arrives to defend her actions.   Three Parts:   Revealing the Stakes: If the players exposed the forgery, Zyxariel’s lawyer argues that the contract was still valid due to fine print. If the players hid the forgery, the case presents conflicting evidence that could implicate the party. The mortal involved tells a tragic tale of betrayal, pulling at their conscience.   Clash of Legal Minds: Zyxariel’s team employs aggressive legal strategies, citing obscure clauses and deflecting blame. Evidence of the forgery may resurface, depending on the players’ prior actions, forcing them to choose between honesty or covering their tracks. The players must also deal with the Arbiter’s growing impatience, as they demand efficiency and clarity.   The Verdict and Aftermath: Expose Zyxariel: The Margravine is punished (possibly demoted or reassigned to an undesirable role), but she vows revenge on the players. Side with Zyxariel: The mortal is condemned, but the players gain Zyxariel’s favor, earning a devilish ally at the cost of their integrity. Seek a Compromise: The mortal is compensated with a lesser boon, but Zyxariel escapes major consequences, leaving her a dangerous figure for future encounters.   Closing Note: This case sets up Zyxariel as a recurring antagonist or dubious ally, depending on the players’ decisions, creating long-term stakes for their careers in the ICA.