So in a way you are correct. The very fact that blanks exist does not guarantee that you will have a successful religion. They are an enabler. It's what the players do with them that counts. In Sanguis Astroism, the players often use these blanks as enablers around which to hold theological discussions.
You speak of develooped lore as if it was a "disabler". Torenism had a lot of stuff in it, and they had a lot of people commited to the religion. The Blood Cult had a lot of stuff too, and florished. Did it become the number 1 religion in follower count? No, but if you are accusing it on "too much lore", then you truly were blind to the fact that it preached, you know, sacrificing living beings to please the gods and had questionnable ties to the daimons? The Blood Cult was never meant to be mainstream. Did we have a lot of established lore? Yes. Did that stop people from adding more? No. We have players write up lore for it regardless. Per capita, a LOT more than SA ever did. There are a billion things in life that can make religious people seek divine guidance. To not start up with a dozen answers is either sheer laziness or intentional vagueness to increase acceptability. Does SA debate these things more than Eretzism? Well, yes, but Eretzism has a fraction of the follower count, has a fraction of the activity rates from those present, isn't on a SMA continent, and is quite a bit older.
In the Blood Cult, we used *lore* as an enabler, instead of blanks. With so much random lore, it's much easier to try to extrapolate by making a bunch of wild links between random existing bits.
I won't deny that the "came first" part helped. But by itself that simply can't be the only factor, or even the main factor. Other religions were founded in the religious vacuums of the west, the south, the central islands, etc. These religions had a wide open space in which to expand. There were no competing religions to stop them. The peasantry were all pagans, with no competing priests to steal their followers, no other realm-based religions to fight against, the nobles of the realm did not already belong to other faiths, etc. They had the exact same opportunities to establish themselves and expand that SA had. Why did they fail? And I refuse to believe the answer is "SA was established first". That's a lazy answer, laced with sour grapes.
How many nobles went through Morek in their lifetime compared to Caerwyn? How many colonies did Caerwyn establish as opposed to Morek? How strong was Caerwyn to impose things on its colonies as opposed to Morek? How did the government system influence Caerwyn's stance on religion as opposed to Morek?
"Wide open spaces" are not very important. Who cares if you convert far-away rogue regions? Any priest can come and undo your job in a day or two. For one, don't forget that Morek was a theocracy, Caerwyn was a republic. Morek imposed SA on its colonies and on neighbours, Caerwyn did not. Why did the western religions fail? Well, for one, they *did* face more competition. The Seven were small, isolated, and died on their own. There were many realms in the North-East, but just one religion for almost all of its history. In contrast, there were few realms in the west, and they almost all had their own religion, if not two, plus the faith some of them imported from their original realms. Natural SA expansion competed with VE in Caerwyn. SA influence competes with Triunism in Terran. In D'Hara, SA, Dragon Worship, and Verdis Elementum were all present at the same time at one point, now it's just SA and VE. Etc, etc. SA has a ton of SA theocracies, and the only theocracies (in name or spirit) that existed to something else were destroyed by SA.
They did not have the "exact same opportunities", not by a longshot. SA was in one of the four founding realms. The western colonies came in way, way later. And no non-SA realm was a theocracy. In addition, all the enthusiasm for religion that was present when SA was founded was already pretty much gone by the time the other religions came up.
As for "if x, then do y", SA has the lamest one of them all. "If (time of year), then (have this mood more)". Great theology to be proud of, there...
Don't get me wrong, SA is a great model for a "successful" religion. I just don't consider it to be a "good" religion, because I don't believe any normal human could be even remotely spiritually satisfied by its teaching, or that such a religion could have the same scope of success had it happened in the real world in the middle ages.
And what have the remaining religions done to capitalize on this new power vacuum?
New religions sprung up, Eretzism re-emerged. The one that replaced the Old Gods tried to expand, but we'll see what that gives. Qyrvaggism and Alluran were preached in now-pagan Enweil lands to stir up trouble and help Rio in their war. Otherwise, not much as far as I know.
I don't find it surprising that religions that put in trouble people who weren't searching for it are not successful. Do you?
No kidding. That doesn't mean that a religion should not have any code of conduct or taboos that at least restrict characters a little in what they might normally want to do. Real world religions have tons of arbitrary rules.
Chenier, you do realize that not every successful religion has an afterlife. Many sects of Buddhism do not believe in an afterlife.
Eastern religions, as far as I know, tend to preach reincarnation and an ultimate nothingness. Not having an "afterlife" in the end of it isn't the same as lacking theology on the afterlife: the theology just clearly says "there is no afterlife". No human being would seriously devote his life to a religion that says "Well, you know, maybe this, or maybe that, but really, we don't know what happens after death", especially in those days.
