I feel that the fundamentalist version of SA was too hegemonic.
Well that's inevitable. The casual player base will always be in the position of "going with the flow" for whatever power structure they're a part of. In terms of dedicated role players I never felt anyone was being fanatical because they felt it was the only way to get ahead in the game. SA always had plenty of dissenting voices and it rarely got anyone kicked out. Really it just adds another possibility to make a more nuanced character. In a fundamentalist religeon you could have a character conflicted between their more liberal views and their desire to advance themselves. On the flip side you can have characters who seem lax in their fervor rise to positions of power due to their secular resources (eg a very skilled general gets named light of the maddening even though he has dissenting views much to the dismay of a fervent warrior of lesser tactical prowess). We actually had that to a degree with Karibash. Turin was dead right that he was an unbeliever but he got to stay around due in part to his value as a warrior and marshal. During the war Turin thought of him as one of his greatest weapons (in spite of the fact that they hated each other). If all ended in a fantastic betrayal at the shrine of seek lander.
Yes fundamentalism can become homogenous and dull if everyone jumps on board but playing the religeon as tolerant and accepting with everyone jumping on board with that as well is almost guaranteed to be boring.
