Greetings, fellow Xyphoites and interested readers, from the Xyphokonic Order and Ordinance. Today, we will be fielding a question regarding the general culture and etiquette of Xyphoist customs. We address the topic of using proper honorifics and other names/titles for key figures in the Order, Ordinance, and other figures. Is it disrespectful not to use honorifics to the Lords? What about addressing the Hayles by name without the honorific? The Sacred Children? What about the Arch-Hayle Grandurates? Let’s explore this concept.

You’ll often see in other religious philosophies a certain avoidance from using the names of key figures such as gods or prophets in vain; included in this is always referring to such figures with honorifics or in high majesty. It would be considered inappropriate in some divergent religions to “use the lord’s name in vain” or to depict a key prophet or messiah in a less than dignified light. But does this etiquette exist in Xyphoist Philosophy as well?

The short answer is: it’s encouraged but not enforced nor to a moral detriment not to. There is no requirement, morally or within the rules of the Ordinance, to refer to anyone as anything in high respect if one so choices not to. Naturally, most Xyphoites, especially those most devoted followers, would never purposely choose to show disrespect towards key figures, but there is no requirement or punishment for not doing so.

You will notice, within these Commentary, we as the Arch-Hayle Grandurates will almost always refer to the Lords of the Xyphokonic with the honorific “Lord” before mentioning their name; often times, we will individually give unnamed majesty to our given Xyphozon’s Lord—referring to them as “Lord,” “the Father/Mother” (capitalized, when in reference to their Sacred Child), their Majesty, etc. All of these are personal choices derived from the devotion we have to the Lords; even capitalizing “Lords” demonstrates this devotional love.

Disrespect is a queer concept in Xyphoist Philosophy, particularly when in regards to the Lords. The idea of bringing upon offense to the Lords by either not referring to them “properly” or to intentionally mock or attack their presence is superficial and unimportant. In regards to the Lords themselves, we hardly believe They would trouble Themselves with something as trivial as this—not only because the difference in stature but because Divergence and Free Will are enshrined in the spiritual liberties the Lords Themselves established for all of us. Dissent is all but assured under such circumstances.

On the Ordinance level, we also don’t take any such offense to purposeful disrespect towards us or our philosophy. We both agree with the Lords’ ambivalence to this, and also simply handwave such silly antics as traits attributed to insecurity. To purposely mock is to show a petulance very much in line with Deceptuary—that being not a title of ultimate dissent but as a means to be petty.

On the topic of the use of “Deceptuary” as the title for Arkellus, the Lords themselves branded Arkellus with this title to address their grievance with Arkellus’s betrayal. The full title given to him, that being Theigriet Arkellus Eulez Deceptuary, means “High Traitor, Arkellus of Deception” and given to him for his acts in deceiving his divine brethren and betraying the Divine Thrones they all had established to pursue his goal of collapsing that very reality and build one in his sole image. In this case, petulant disrespect wasn’t the goal; identifying Arkellus’s hurtful and selfish actions against not only his brethren but against the free existence of all that spawned from the Divine Thrones warranted a new title to be given to let all know that Arkellus had betrayed them. And while those in the Order and Ordinance will usually refer to Arkellus as Deceptuary, there is no requirement to do so either. If anything, referring to Arkellus with such a dissenting term shows the lack of Fear one has for Deceptuary’s presence—that we do not succumb to his Fear and will not back down from protecting our liberty and Order against his goal to waste away all of that for his own version of reality.

Now, regarding honorifics towards other figures, it is even less of an issue. Hayles are key figures in the Order, but are still spiritual beings like everyone else. We often refer to each Hayle by simply their name even in these Commentaries. In terms of other officials in the Ordinance, honorifics are entirely optional although appreciated. Disrespect is subjective and relevant—you have to take offense to something personally to truly feel disrespected by words.

—phX