The Intendant takes the floor
Briefly, in response to my honorable Magistrate and Captain-Marshal, I believe their complaints are well founded. I would support the office of Chief Inquisitor, serving under the office of the Curator, and directing the efforts of the lawyers of the state. I also agree that the proposal for the Judicial Police [ooc: can’t currently access googledocs and forget what I named them] should be incorporated into the state militia, but I believe they should at least be considered a different department. I think that those who enforce the laws of our city, and handle crime and punishment, should be considered separate from the military defenders of Sul. We are not an occupying force holding power by strength of arms, and therefore, the laws we pass should be enforced by a more civilian body.
But on to more important matters.
I know that my honorable colleague Karpyr has good in his heart, but if we are to fear the plagues of faction and tyranny, we must fear their spectre in his words.
Let us remember why we rose against Keros in the first place. We did so, of course, out of a sense of justice, and, yes, of faith. But why were these senses, the most important senses in man’s political being, offended?
Friends, we all remember the crimes and abuses of that monster’s reign: the killings, the false charges, the disappearances in the night. The defiling of the holy legacy of Sul. But never, ever, EVER forget the REASON that Keros did these things. While he ground our people into dirt and broke our temples, fires, and waters, he did so in the name of FAITH. He claimed the mantle of the College, the approval and terrible power of a body only he could contact and which he ensured that only he could influence, and he used that burning fire of faith and duty (which, I remind you, he truly believed his actions were furthering!) to act in a manner reprehensibly selfish, tyrannical, and most certainly unfaithful.
This is not to attempt to exonerate him, or defend him whatsoever. I merely wish to remind you of the reasons for which we have created this body, from documents signed in blood in dark alleys and knives lifted wet and red from chests. I wish to remind you of the principles and risks we stand to fight here, in this chamber, as the city of Sul! We will find him, we will catch him, we will try him, and he will face judgment for his crimes.
But how could we have avoided a Keros? How can we forever prevent the return of a monster in such a form?
Keros, as despot, ruled in the name of faith, and drew the law he claimed to execute from it. But he himself was above that law! Note that the faith and zeal which he claimed to apply was untouchable, inner, immune to outside argumentation and pressure. The law stemmed from the “divine” will of his whim and the steel and fervor of his men, and we suffered for it. How we suffered, friends, how we suffered! May we never forget...
This suffering is why I wrote our law. With a code, with courts chaired by men with proven careers in the interpretation of letter and argument, with long experience in the application of a justice that may not always feel fair, that may leave tears and ill sentiment, but always stems from the same font and is, as a system, as an aggregate, the best way to order a society, we must not depend on the whims of a personal faith of a single man! The law I have proposed today is ultimately fair, is divinely inspired, stands to end chaos, and puts itself above a fickle claim of faith by lending a dependable structure to our political lives.
So with this all said let us turn to the request our friend Karpyr makes of our law.
He requests something simple, apparently benign: merely that the judges of the criminal courts be required to be men of faith. In support of this proposal, he notes that “deep judicial learning and character” is an impossible quality to verify.
Let me first defend the existing language, and explain why we may in fact verify these qualities.
We have, in our city and in our society, schools and associations devoted to education in the matters and application of justice. These institutions, in my view, are more than capable of producing men who are qualified, wholly and completely, to take positions in our new courts. And if a degree or certification is believed to be insufficient on its own grounds, it is a simple matter to investigate the character of such lettered men by speaking to their professors, their relations, their friends, their enemies, and the people who fill their lives.
Of course, these schools are inaccessible to those without wealth or connections. I recognize this, and so does the code. I remind you all today that I myself have no degree in laws, but I bring before you a code that, besides a few points of contention, seems to be acceptable. Furthermore, I am recognized in two communities: that of merchants and economy, and that of the poor of this city, oppressed as the rest of us under Keros and oppressed as well by the grindstone of poverty. It was there, without accreditation, that I built my reputation as an arbiter. And I beg you, try to find a single case in which I committed injustice. One time that I cheated a man from a fortune that was rightfully, with full weight of evidence, his. Find me a time, a single time, on which I denied justice to a child, a family, a sparring pair of clans. You will not, because I myself am a man with a verifiable background in judicial reasoning, the making of justice, and the composure of a man of the law. I know there are many others like this — robbed of a title by virtue of birth, but all the same accomplished and gifted adjudicators who are as qualified to chair a bench and decide a case.
But faith... faith is not like judicial character. A man can act like he has it, and play the part of the pious, but retain a heart blacker than blood-soaked soot. We see this, among other examples, with Keros. He ruled in the name of faith and virtue, but we all know the true stain of his crimes. On the other hand, there are men (and I know many) who are so busy by the trials of the material life and the responsibilities of leading families and dependents that they cannot engage in the demonstration of faith. They cannot grace the steps of a temple for want of time away from the shovel, hammer, or stall, and they cannot grace a donation box with a clink of coin for want of the sustenance they need to live and work another day. But are such men not faithful?! Foregoing all in favor of the holy responsibility they owe to their relations? And what of those who choose to practice in a different manner? I grew up in the North, and I will say that, while we know the same religion, while we know the same duties and guidelines, our temples look nothing like those of Sul. Are we less faithful just for praying on our knees, with hands grasped tight behind us, and expressing our belief in a different manner?
Given that we cannot confirm whether a man is merely pretending to be faithful or truly acting on the good word, we must then ask how this proposed clause would in fact be evaluated.
Perhaps we could let the College, that arbiter of morality, decide our judges. But not only would that further remove our justice from our own people, but they already have their voice with their designated spot on the appropriate board.
Perhaps we would merely let the popular will show us, and leaders of faith of Sul would tell our men of laws who would or would not pass muster.
At this point I wish to tell you a story. It is a simple tale, of nothing more than what transpired as I walked with my men to this chamber this very morning.
As we passed through a market we passed by a group of preachers and a few followers, those of the Brotherhood our friend Karpyr shepherds. Their cries to leash the beast have comforted me these past months, filling me each day with new fervor as I seek to arrange the laws which will guide us forward. I know that they hunger for justice, and I strive to sate this appetite.
But this morning, as we passed, they chanted a different refrain. “Just zeal,” they cried to us, called to us. And so I turned, and they saw me, and they fell upon our party.
At first it was merely louder, then they seethed with anger, and in the end my men and I fled with pebbles bouncing from the armor of my gradi.
I will note that the market had emptied well before that time, and the worshippers and their leaders were the last standing in that corner of the square. Where had stood hundreds, at my reckoning, stood only a dozen or two. Where had stood Sul, in her vibrance and her brilliance, stood only her self-proclaimed faithful and two dressed in the image of their chief, Karpyr.
I do not wish to levy accusations of assault or assassination against members of this court. As I have said, Karpyr is a good and dedicated man. But I wish to relay this tale.
I ask you, now, who would say who is faithful? Would it be some person, some organization, who would tell us what to think of a man in terms of a quality we have established as impossible to evaluate?
Or, perhaps, would we see the situation we already see happening. A situation in which a self-proclaimed prophet and an indisputable swayer of men does not like what he sees in the votes of others. So he attempts to force the vote and to sway the law in his favor, by manufacturing public support in the name of HIS faith and letting this fester around the city. He threatens the Judiciary that problems may ensue should they not respect his will, and proceeds to rally his followers against government although no others have shared in his concern. He claims the mantle of sole interpreter of insubstantial faith, and then claims that a man of justice and religion has not sufficiently reflected these qualities in a law code based on them.
In other words, despite the piety displayed in the law code, it lacks the mark of Karpyr’s particular faith. And this, gentleman is what he proposes. Not that we should respect religion and the good in our laws, but rather that his lonesome opinion on what is right by the heavens shall rule.
And we have already seen what he does when he does not get his way in his regard. If my troubles on the way to this chamber today are not enough evidence, have you not heard the rumors of what he presides over in the runs? I am loathe to lend strength to words of base speculation, but we cannot ignore how sustained these tales have become.
What would happen if we were to add this clause?
The demonstrations against me and my policies, and for “zeal”, may cease, but should a judge ever fall into disfavor, we would see the Brotherhood motivate demonstrations across the city. Any trangressor could be termed insufficientpy faithful, a condemnation likely backed by “popular demonstrations”. And then, in order to remain coherent and proper, this judge would have to be sacked despite doing nothing but his duty, just not the duty which Karpyr wants.
In other words, Karpyr’s proposal would give him a sufficiently soft veto power on any judge, and set a precedent for applying such clauses to any legislation. We would bend to a fragment of Sulan society, and surrender control of our destiny to the voices of a fervent few.
Is this not, in essence, what Keros did? Give himself the corrupt and final say in all matters, sanctioned by a veneer of religion and empowerment?
I hope in my heart of hearts that Karpyr did not intend and does not intend all this as evil. I merely ask that he and his flock respect the laws the way that they are designed, and recognizes that they as written the best way to manage justice in Sul.
But, if he did...
If he seeks to become a traitor, a tyrant, and a Keros, let him say it plain. It would be the honorable, faithful thing to do.