Greetings Golgazir,

First of all, thank you for taking the time to go to the Apse and
Basilica and read the Codex, I just wish youd actually spoken to a
Church member about the whole thing rather than just specific examples.

Firstly, when Lord Deucalion stated that Good is Unchanging, Absolute
and Eternal he meant that Good is a fixed concept and one that cannot
and will not change. Good is what Good always was and Good will be what
Good currently is. To quote the Lord Himself, if indeed this was true,
there would be no way for you to devote you life to good - for your
"good" actions would be "bad" or "evil" to someone else. Good is an
absolute and will always be the same, it is not subjective; or for
example a Mhaldorian slaying a Mhun could be looked on as Good by them,
when killing an innocent is in truth anything but a Good action.

Secondly, with regards to the path of Good not being for the timid;
being a follower of Good, Order, Light and Righteousness is not easy, we
fight the forces that oppose us on a daily basis in numerous arenas and
when He said, It is not a road to be walked by the timid, for it takes a
pure soul and a strong will to do that which is right, even though it
may not always seem to be what is easiest or best He meant that to be a
true follower of Good you have to be dedicated, strong and firm in your
beliefs.

Thirdly, with regards to your eighth paragraph, people really shouldnt
be joining the Church if they dont believe Good is Unchanging, Absolute
and Eternal its a major part of what we stand for; so I dont see why He
would not word it as a commandment, perhaps He just choose not to?

With regards to Do not kill unjustly indeed it is the intent that makes
an act unjust, if you kill with an intention to do Good but end up
killing a Good creature, I would still see punishment follow for the
Church member. What is meant by the commandment is that Church members
shouldnt run around killing for the sake of killing.

With regards to theft, where did it say that stealing was an absolute
wrong, as I remember it the Codex gives two explicit occasions where
theft is acceptable. The second which is when someone of wickedness is
revenging the land hasnt been used in recent times at least to my
knowledge. However, If a Church member steals from a thief to return
something to someone, good for them! And aye, it gives some power to
certain people to decide in certain decisions, if these decisions help
Good and the Innocent; I see no problem there.

With regards to oppression and Lord Shaitan, to quote the scrolls on Him
One who is not utterly devoted to the path of domination over the weak
and advancement of the flesh and spirit would do well to avoid the path
of this Horned God. last I checked, the Chuch wants to free the weak and
protect them from Evil and their Oppression, so Im not sure what you
meant with your ramblings here.

With regards to honour and the oath, that section of the Codex exists to
ensure that when people make a promise they remember their oath to the
Codex and ensure that their actions will not mean them to break any part
of their Church oath or the Codex. With regards to enemies, I know most
House members would check the enemies of organisations to which they
belong before replying to any sort of request, in fact I think most
people on sapience do, so the situation you describe with hypocrisy for
the House is unlikely and unrealistic. Ive also never heard of
negotiation with evil or surrender to Evil by a Church member as that
would be against other areas of the Codex so since its never really
happened and I cannot see it happening, what do you mean?!

With regards to the arena scenario you put to Beatrice, its the arena
not Sapience proper, its a game?! Im sure you swore oaths not to attack
other members of your House or cityis action taken if you fight them in
the arena?! If it is, gods help your city/House. Also how likely is it
that Lord Matsuhama would be in the room with you?!

Golgazir, you seem to not have understood much of the Codex when you
read it and this is perhaps because the Codex is a living document and
some elements need to be put into example. Also it could be because you
seem to have approached it with a negative outlook. I would advise that
you had asked a Church member to discuss it with you, and then perhaps
your view may have more accurate. If you wish to discuss any of this
with me, please approach me and not post here.

For others in Sapience, if you wish to find out more about the Codex or
the Church, please feel free to read the Codex, which is found at the
Apse in the Basilica. HELP CHURCH also has some details on how one can
find out more about the Church.

On a final note, the Church is not Shallam, Shallam is not the Church.
They may have some similar beliefs, the Basilica may reside within
Shallam, they may even share some members and the Houses of the Church
may reside within Shallam; but there are differences between the two
entities and one of them is that the Codex is not binding on Shallamese
citizens, unless they also happen to be Church members.

In reply to Herenicus post, Shallamese citizens are made to swear I
promise to uphold the ideals that Shallam is based on, that I will harm
no innocent, and will take no action that knowingly empowers evil,
darkness, or chaos. When they join Shallam, this is the reason for the
hunting ban on innocents; its part of what Shallam stands for. The Codex
plays no official part in it that I know of.

Yours in the Light,

Misdun Shu'in-Sioraiocht-Raighne,
Mayan Prelate of the Holy Church of Achaea

Penned by my hand on the 6th of Miraman, in the year 405 AF.