Like is it something all ESA members must beleive or can there be debate?
There's not the same hardline nature to ESA. There's some core conceptual virtues we follow, but plenty of room for characters to play that out in their own way. What Seoras necessarily approves of, disapproves of is a requirement of belief of everyone else. Depending on what it is, he might yell more or less, it'd play out via persuasion, not mechanics. For example, Glaumring. Seoras thinks he's a raving madman, but he's a member.
As Gundam said, most just don't care because its just roleplay background. And I knew that founding ESA. I *try* to only use theological concepts as IC flavor for why we have certain virtues we strive for. Anything more complex belongs for the priesthood or elders, not the general members who are turned off by lengthy theological discussions.
Oh well that's true it would have been better if there were more internal conflict on the level of actual wars.
And that's how I've been orienting ESA from the beginning, to avoid that mistake. In many ways, thats the 'Lesson of the First Church'. Having that federation, whatever quibbles on what was or was not a crusade, and rulers that refused to war other astroists was what went wrong, more than anything within SA. SA was just the excuse imo. For instance, Sergio, even when it had nothing to do with his realm, stuck himself in a war and continued that war solely because his ally asked, when that ally itself was already itself backup support for its ally. And that policy of war continued even as it hurt his realm when, warring their fellow theocracy would've attracted nobles to both theocracies and made them both stronger. Forming a third theocracy from morek in the process would've made SA even stronger again. To heal sometimes you have to cut yourself a bit.
