I may have misunderstood something. Please set me straight.
The gods of Harn are more consistent because they are real. On Kethira, the priests can, and do, perform miracles. This does wonders in bucking up the faithful.
Priests and miracles are not the problem. The Churches are fine as to how they are established. To me the inconsistency lies in the Good and Evil.
1. Masses can be ruled by fear and terror for a period of time. I still have hard time swallowing the idea of a society that is fundamentally an anti-thesis to life. How does one motivate masses to adopt this fierce hunger for sadistic chaos and destruction? Although rulers can have peculiar personal traits and there are sects of all kinds, a nation of Sadism or a planetwide well-established Church of Chaos is slightly too much.
Many of the revolutions in the past have eventually failed, because the idealists want radical changes the everyday life of the common folks. There is something common to most people that could be characterized as common sense. You can challenge it, you can strecth it, but only so much. As Abraham Lincoln put it: "You can fool all of the people some time and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all of the people all the time.
". Fundamentally evil societies and mainstream Satanism, if you like, do not really cultivate the values of a durable society. I find it hard to swallow the idea that masses take on this quest for Primal Chaos or of Murder-Death-Kill because they are directed against all life.
2. All these religious matters would be an academic problem, if the Good and Evil were not hardcoded into the system. One cannot say, for instance, that Agrikans or Morgathians are really nice people, it just that Laranians have misinterpreted their doctrine and therefore Agrikans are persecuted for no good reason. The air of cultural relativism dies out as soon as you take a look at the agenda of these Churches. I am not very comfortable with the idea that Evil puts on this kind of flashy costume because it sort of puts out a good deal of the moral dilemmas and political intrigue. It is too black and white. For a ruler, it might be nice to have arhetorical Enemy to blaim. But the conflict between Rethem and Kanday, for example, is not of political kind: it is the very battle of the Good and Evil -- not of who is right, who has a 'legitimate claim', but Good and Evil themselves. A knight from Kanday is always morally on the safe side, because the enemy is so blatantly evil and its goals are so malign that there can never be any doubt of who is right and who is wrong. Evil even carries flags just to make sure.
3. There seems to be an evil God for each type of wickedness. A person has type G32 of distortion in moral judgements <=> he worships God A5.
The Gods are very different for each other without any overlap, and there is a danger of the followers being all-out one thing stereotypes. Because the Gods ARE, it not so much a question of belief as it is of support.
4. Similarly, Larani stands for order and the order that they impose is Good, and the way in which this order is maintained is Good. But ethics is supposed to be universalizable and Good cannot depend on one's social status. Because the Gods ARE and they provide different kinds of palettes for desired behaviour and Good, there cannot be any common basis for ethics and morality.
Laranian: "Uh, that kind of slaughtering people just for the feel of it is frowned upon back-home where I live. I resent that.".
Morgathian: "Oh really? Around here, not slaughtering people and not practising impulsive violence would be wrong. 'Wanna give it a go?"
5. The role of Save-K'Nor is unclear to me. Are they like empirical scientists, like dogmatic scholastics or just plain librarians? The idea of worshipping knowledge and at the same time producing it seems problematic.