Not so. All our laws came of FRs free will when requested by Vellos. The kicking and screaming came from the church when we passed the open preaching law which we then revoked by a new vote.
So it's entirely a coincidence that the new vote in which the Farronite Lords changed their minds came after the church berated and condemned them for passing it? Perhaps I'm mistaken because I'm not in FR but it certainly seems to me that were it not for the church's nagging, Farronite law would have remained quite un-theocratic in this area. And quite frankly I think most of the Elders do not see much appeal in having to nag one of their "theocracies" to death every time a new crisis crops up requiring a new law or other service from them.
Furthermore I was also specifically thinking about the situation with Allison- while that is not mentioned in the Charter, harboring Allison was a very un-theocratic action and Khari made a point of emphasizing that she did not care whatsoever what the church thought on the matter and that the execution was done entirely for personal reasons. A "theocracy" whose ruler makes a point of deliberately ignoring the Elders Council on important issues is again not something I think most Elders want to deal with.
Wait, the Charter provides NO GUIDANCE WHATSOEVER ABOUT HOW TO DEFINE THEOCRACY?
Oh my goodness! What an ACCIDENTAL OVERSIGHT!
Wait a second... Astrum and Morek and Corsanctum don't abide by all the responsibilities listed?
ZOMG! How could the person writing the Charter have been so careless!
I don't know what to say, guys, this is all just one big terrible mixup that the Farronite Republic might be more eligible for theocratic status than Morek! I swear I didn't mean it!
The ambiguity cuts both ways however. As Constantine pointed out when the new Charter was being voted for, there are no details whatsoever as to how or if a realm could become a theocracy. All that is listed are the requirements for already existing and future theocracies. So while the ambiguity does mean that an Elders Council favorable to FR could admit them on the grounds they meet the requirements, there is absolutely nothing in the Charter that requires an Elders Council less friendly to FR to do so. And I would argue that the majority of the current Elders Council seems certainly quite against the notion of giving FR theocracy status.
As I said Constantine has noted this ambiguity, and is quite happy with it- he is not against FR becoming a theocracy on principle, and if circumstances were different may have in fact been favorable to their entry (though perhaps as a "faithful realm" rather than using the word theocracy). However he feels that with the current leadership of FR being as it is, making them a theocracy will merely give Khari more excuses to ignore the Elders when it suits her and thereby actually harm the church rather than benefit it.
