My hands were trembling slightly as I turned the delicate pages of one
of the most important documents in Sapience, The Holy Codex of The
Church.

I was in Shallam following an arena event that had fallen through - a
little disappointed and facing a long journey home, I decided to avail
myself of this opportunity to explore The Jewel of The East. I spoke to
some natives for guidance, and they were good enough to direct me to
some points of interest, reminding me to be on my very best behavior. No
problem there, I thought, and set about taking in the majestic sights of
this place that was, to my Ashtani mind, an exotic and intriguing
locale.

Shortly, I came upon the Holy Codex of The Church, as a novice was
pouring over it. This brought back memories to me of my own novice hood,
studying the scrolls of The Mythos, and my interest was piqued. I asked
the supplicant if I might read from this book, and he replied that I
could. I set to work with a scholarly joy, trusting that such a famed
and crucial document would be filled with layered wisdom and myriad
mysteries to uncover.

The opening of the codex, with a scribe's definition of righteousness, a
tactic I found to be less than helpful, was the first of many
disappointments that I was to encounter.

The meek, apparently, will not be inheriting Sapience.

As an occultist and chaos-philosopher myself, I am not overly swayed by
the admitedly authorative words of Lord Deucalion when he sets out in no
uncertain terms that good is an entirely objective thing; for although
there is something to be said for the concept that devotion to an
unfixable ideal is impossible, I do not hold it as truth, being devoted
as I am to ever-changing chaos. What surprised me more was the
proclamation that "doing the good and righteous thing is not a road to
be walked by the timid". It is little surprise that many turn to evil,
then, which at least encourages self empowerment, if Righteousness
Himself is turning the timid away on the very first page of a very
public record.

Discouraged, I continued.

I learned that there were ten commandments of the Church, until after
reading them, when I saw there were in fact only nine commandments, as
number seven, "Good Is Unchanging, Absolute and Eternal", is a theory,
not a command. The reason for this mistake or omission, I believe, is
that the same principle phrased as a command - "Thou Must Believe Good
is Unchanging, Absolute and Eternal" would be too bold a declaration of
a grim and possible truth, that a Church member must think a certain
way, lest the "shame" and "punishment" spoken of on page three of the
Codex befall him.

The first commandment, "Do Not Kill Unjustly", looks good on the fine
paper of the codex, but sadly the following text belies the previously
two pages' declaration that good is absolute; for apparently:"It is the
*intent* of the action that makes the killing wrong and unjust.", a
subjective standard of measurement for a flimsy law; flimsy, as
"exception to this code may come in times of war".

I think we shall all sleep more safely in the knowledge that The Church
will not kill people unless they mean well by it, or really really need
to.This was not the rigorous moral standard I would have expected from a
tome of Good.

We follow this with similar news on page five, where we learn that the
absolute wrong of stealing does not apply "where an individual is
ravishing the lands with his/her wickedness", a vague term so loosely
framed that the further clarification is provided that only Church
leadership may give permission to decide when this does or doesn't
apply. This control is needed no doubt because the exception as framed
could be applied to such 'wrongdoers' as fisherman or farmers with only
a little imagination. Due to this lack of clarity, it would seem
commandment number two also requires subjective interpretation - with
the implication that the Church could use their monopoly on the ability
to define wickedness for these purposes as it suits them to go after
their personal enemies.

Slightly confused by the contradictions I have encountered this far, I'm
privileged to learn after reading the next page that the Church is "very
pro-goodness". A pity that they are not also "very pro-writing", or
perhaps phrases such as that, or "un-reciprocated" of page nine, or the
mish-mash of Achaean on page 14 that is "However, do not ignore it's
"letter" in arrogant believe that you understand its spirit well enough
to alter the "letter".", would not occur.

I do not wish to seem petty, focusing on the form of the words when it
is their meaning that is of primary importance, but why are these
blatant errors allowed to exist in a document that is not only a
foundation of church teaching, but also holy, and not only holy, but
also on public display? In this single sentence, "its" is used twice in
the same way with two different spellings. Simple sense tells anyone,
scholar or not, that they can't both be rightand it is my "arrogant
believe" that for a document this important, more care needs to be
taken.

We wouldn't want to violate that third commandment now, would we?

The Church makes no secret of its crusade to "end all evil", a subject
on which they at least demonstrate the virtue of clarity - one of the
merits of being "very pro-goodness", no doubt! But just as they have had
issues in the past recognising that opposition to chaos is itself a
source of chaos, they seem to believe that oppression in the name of
good is not evil:

"evil *should* be oppressed by the Church."

Finding this hard to believe myself, I decided to consult an expert,
Vicar Arelas Coldraven of the Blood Congregation, who had this to say,
among other things:

"One of the Lords of Evil is the God of Oppression. Therefore my faith
leads me to believe that oppression and evil are one and the same."

Well put, I think, and a good demonstration that while the Church may
claim to seek to end all evil, they advocate the use of evil methods to
do so. This is clearly self-defeating, and illustrates that the "the
Church is doomed to hypocrisy" not only in the original context of this
Codex quote, when the commandments are not followed, but certainly
sometimes when they are obeyed as well.

If, indeed, they are intended to be obeyed at all. Take, for example,
the commandment numbered eight in the holy document, "Honour Your Word".
This principle states that "If you make a promise, keep it. Do so even
if it is difficult."

When I first read this, I felt a very profound sense of respect.
Finally, I had found something that struck personal resonance with my
life; for, as an Occultist, I am sworn to an Oath that I uphold, even
though to do so is regularly confining and even costly.

Unfortunately, the glory of these first two sentences was completely
dispelled by the rest of the paragraph, as respect quickly gave way to
disillusionment courtesy of the following words of dubious ethical
merit:

"If keeping such a promise would make you break any other element of
this codex then: 1) You shouldn't have made it, and 2) Your original
oath to this codex comes first."

Apparently, keeping one's word when circumstances become difficult only
holds true if it is not a difficulty for The Church. The teaching is as
clear as it is dismal; that honour stops where goodness starts. This
may, at first, seem innocuous enough - seeking an example of such a
case, I approached Empyreal house member Carmell Jaydde-Stormcrow who
told me that, regarding a priest following this dictum, "if you say
you'll help someone, then they later find out that person is a house or
church or city enemy they would have to break that promise." A little
more severe than I had first thought, for in my lax perusal of the text
I had not seen the commandment that indicated that one must never aid an
enemy of Shallam regardless of why that person had been made an enemy.

I had, however, seen the commandment detailing how evil must be
oppressed, so I was already able to surmise, rightly or wrongly, that a
priest is not supposed to make any promises of quarter to their foes
(and, as a logical continuation, I assume diplomacy or negotiation is
strictly forbidden, as is accepting surrender?), and that if he does,
then he's under no obligation to be true to his word after the fact. If
a priest offers surrender to an "evil" enemy on the condition that enemy
will not be harmed, he's disobeying the codex; but he's also disobeying
the codex if he then doesn't break his word and punish or slay the
evil-doer once he's given himself up. This paints a terrifying picture
of House Empyreal, and I have to wonder whether with this codex in
public view, that isn't intentional.

The tenth commandment forbids killing in the Presence of any Divine,
regarding it as defilement of holy ground:
"Do not kill upon holy ground, or in the temple of any god, or in the
PRESENCE of any god for the presence of the divine makes any spot on
which they stand holy in that moment."

Considering this, I put it to Empyreal House member Beatrice
Ketrel-Shu'in, whether it would be permissible to, for example, fight in
an arena contest which Lord Matsuhama was presiding over. Her reply:

"Some Divine do allow it, I've known Lady Keresis to ask others to kill
in front of Her to make Her happy. Each situation is different, if
you've passed your combat tests, and a good fighter and you want to
attend something like that I don't think there's any problem."

Another example of a commandment being set aside, but only with Church
permission.

Perhaps the commandment is not being set aside, but instead, like the
commandment not to steal except from the "wicked", it is simply
ambiguous. This would be tolerable, perhaps even expected, from a holy
text, and would certainly allow the leeway the church seems only too
keen to avail themselves of. However, the codex itself decrees that this
cannot be the case:

"The Letter of the Law is for clear guidance, for without clear and
absolute guidance, many sheep are lead astray or wander off on their own
to be devoured by the wolves."

Yet, the Letter of the Law is not clear. As shown above, it is mutable,
contradictory and vague, and I believe fails to live up to the promise
of a difficult path to an absolute goal enshrined in the first three
pages. The Codex turns away the timid on the very first page of text,
and then itself turns away from the hard options it offers, with rules
on killing waived for mass killing, rules of stealing waived for the
sinful, rules on honour waived for the simple expediency of being able
to lay claim to the glory that is repeatedly proclaimed as the prize of
obedience, without having to endure any of the messy follow-through that
might truly test a follower's mettle.

If there is hope, it lies in Lady Tarah's simple direction to "come to
know and better discern the truth behind the words, for each one holds a
much greater meaning than simple words can ever give." I agree with
this, for I believe that nothing is ever as simple as it seems, and all
of us can stand to benefit from exploration. Nothing is so sacred it
can't be questioned; nothing is so ignorable that it does not merit
examination.

In the case of the Codex, however, I think whatever truth may lie behind
the words is obscured, not illuminated, by the manner of transcription.
Perhaps something has been lost in the translation from the Divine to
the mortal, perhaps the Codex is itself a test, or perhaps my
perceptions are falsely coloured by my personal affinities - but
whatever the case, I cannot deny that upon finishing the text, I was
left with a distinct sense of dissatisfaction that I have not
encountered when studying other documents or tenants of belief - even
those that I do not personally subscribe to.

I'd like to thank Carmell, Beatrice and Arelas for answering my
questions and giving me permission to include their responses - I hope
none of you feel I've twisted your meaning or used your words
inappropriately - as well as the City of Shallam for allowing me, and
anyone else, the dubious pleasure of reading The Codex.

I hope I haven't angered anyone too greatly by posting this, but
conflict is an inevitable part of life and I think it is important that
we speak our minds. My apologies to Lady Tarah and Lord Deucalion and
their followers if I've been disrespectful of their teachings; but the
Codex itself does encourage us to think about its words, and I feel that
is what I've done here.


Penned by my hand on the 15th of Aeguary, in the year 405 AF.