As I'm sure you're all aware, there is a new Codex. Now, I understand
most people probably don't want to read it, as the last one was sort of
a drag. Luckily for you, I've done all the hard work, and given you a
nice long summary with all the juicy bits. Enjoy!

Skipping the introduction, as it is little more than fluff, Ill begin on
page three, which deceptively claims to define Good. Now, maybe Im old
fashioned, but Ive always felt that a definition needs to be more than a
list of adjectives which describe something. The Codex reads, Absolute,
unchanging, and eternal, Good is a force spawned by Creation which seeks
always to keep Creation strong and growing. Great, good for Good. But
what is- it? If I told you that a cow is something that is large, big,
and fat, would you consider that a definition? At least we get an end
goal for Good, which is strength and growth. I suspect they wanted to
just use the word advancement, but that was taken.

They then proceed to define the Realm of Creation as nearly everything
that I know and am. Nearly? Well, thats helpfully specific. Im betting
it's my feet that arent part of creation. People tell they have an
otherworldly smell all the time. Thanks for clearing that up, Codex.

The next page begins with the almost mocking statement that Good has a
concrete definition If only we were allowed to know it! From there we
are informed that the ends do justify the means, as long as the end is
Good, and as long as the ends are greater than or equal to- the means,
everythings good. This equal too thing is great news. Think about it,
lets say youre at an evil carnival where theyve got game with a prisoner
who theyll free if you bring another to take his place. Good is
obligated to keep finding new prisoners to switch in, because the one
for one trade has means which are equal to the ends. Brilliant! After
this little gem, we get a long list of hypotheticals which are never
answered. A lack of answers is always a strong point for a guiding book,
in my experience.

Page five opens like a school teacher talking to her class of five-year
olds, telling them that they are all special, and unique. We are then
provided a nice list of ways to aid Good, none of which actually relate
to the goals of strength or growth, but instead to getting more people
to join the Good club. Not surprisingly, none of the suggestions are to
encourage others to read the Codex. This impressive page ends by
identifying a Goddess whose followers deny up and down to be Good, as
one of the Gods of Good. Apparently She didnt get to read the drafts.
(Though given the poor stylistic choices, I highly doubt there were
any).

On the next page, we are treated to little fable about a dragon who
destroys a village, enslaves the strong and devours the weak. He then
runs out of food because no one is working the fields or hunting, eats
his servants and starves. Im guessing this dragon is supposed to be a
thinly-veiled analogy for Evil, but I read it more as an analogy for the
mentally handicapped, as even a child in the dragons shoes would realize
that he can both hunt for himself and order his slaves who are among the
strongest to work the fields. I dont think the Codex should make fun of
the idiots of the land in its parables. Aside from the poorly thought
details of the fable, the larger point also warrants examination. The
idea goes that if Evil weeds out the weak, eventually the strong will
become the new weak, and the culling will continue until no one is left.
Now, coming from a book that has just admonished us for thinking that
Good might be relative, the insistence that weakness is- relative seems
a bit silly to me.

Now that weve seen the dragon, we get a nice list of the other enemies
of Good. The first is evil, and just in case we cant penetrate the
multi-layered complexity of the last page, the Codex spells out that
weakness is relative and Evil will eat all its servants and so forth.
Next on the list is chaos, which had fallen out of style for the church
to fight as of late. Considering its been so many years since anyone has
really lifted a finger against chaos, and considering that were all
still here and not enslaved, the claims sound a tad exaggerated. From
there, a few more enemies with dire warnings of death and destructions
follow. I am reminded of a tale about a boy who was a shepherd, and
called out about a wolf when there was none, but I cant remember how
that one ended.

We end with a list of things to do, cut down from the last Codex from
ten to a mere four. The first strikes me as rather irrelevant to
anything else that has been said in the book thus far to respect the
Gods, and a rather unconvincing insistence that defiling isnt
disrespectful. Interestingly, Tarah, one of the authors of the book
specifically claims in public news 6221 that the shrine in Jaru is
deserving of respect. Of course, consistency isnt on the list of things
to do, so I can excuse this oversight. Next on the list is to protect
the innocent, as they are fodder for the other forces. It then goes on
to suggest that doing so starves the enemies. Gee, that doesnt sound
like using the innocent as fodder in your battles at all. Thats more
like using as pawns, so thats alright. And besides, as I said,
consistency isnt on the list. Third is to defend ones allies. Again, the
book comes off like a school teachers comforting words to her children,
telling us that alliances are normal and healthy. My mother told me the
same thing about pooping. The last item is to Fight the Enemies Within,
which apparently doesnt mean Twilight followers who have infiltrated the
church, but rather laziness and apathy. The best part about this section
is that we get another item to add to our definition of Good Good is
actions! Well, that certainly clears that up.

The last page is home to a conclusion, which is more of a final attempt
to provide a definition for Good than it is a concluding remark. We note
that it is a purpose, a goal and a lifestyle. Its also not easy or
simple. Is this a definition or the results of a divine game of twenty
questions?

Now, I should say that not everything the servants of Good say is
objectionable. Why, I even agree with some of it! While visiting the
church to read this new document, I overheard a priestess ask aloud:
What would one do without Honour, Service,
and Wisdom? Before I could figure out the answer to this brain-buster,
she informed me that the answer was that they would do the best they
could for Good. And shes right Good is what people without Honour,
Service or Wisdom do.

-Tiax




Penned by my hand on the 6th of Aeguary, in the year 424 AF.