Question about one of Torag's anathemas

[Hespi]

There was a small argument at our table yesterday.

We have a ratfolk cleric who believes in Torag. One of Torag's anathemas is this: "show continued mercy to the enemies of your people when such enemies prove they are undeserving".

The debate arose over who exactly "your people" refers to in this text. In the opinion of the cleric and some players, everyone who is a friend of the ratfolk or whom the ratfolk feel is part of his community is considered "your people", so his enemies are those who want to harm the team or the inhabitants of the Stolen Lands (Kingmaker campaign). He is not part of any dwarf community or city.

Player B said that he thinks "your people" refers to dwarves, since it's Torag, so it's goblinoids and orcs as enemies primarily(or anyone in general who tries to harm dwarves). Player B found this previous forum post by Sean K Reynolds: https://paizo.com/threads/rzs2q4o5?Paladin-of-Torag-LG-limits#22.

Somebody send this response from James Jacobs: https://paizo.com/threads/rzs43jz8?Dwarves-and-insetting-racism#34

Player B says: "Here James just says that there may be different dwarf-enemy, and "Your People" does not refer to Ratfolk friends/companions, it still refers to dwarfs."

What do you think?

[Eldritch Yodel]

Between a decade old post not actually about Pathfinder 2e from a person who doesn't work for Paizo anymore (and as the other point points out has a history of adding some not super lore-compliant statements) and a 2022 post from the creative director which actively addresses that previous post, I feel the second is the one to listen to.

The phrasing is definitely deliberately vague as to make the enemies of your people be referring to actual enemies of your people, not an entire ancestry which another ancestry has a history of racism with.

[keftiu]

The thread you linked was locked by mods, so I'd be careful rehashing it.

Torag's Edicts and Anathema would name dwarves if they exclusively referred to them, the way a few other deities explicitly do. He's a big deal to plenty of other Ancestries - including as part of the Godclaw, a Hellknight order's pantheon - so I don't think Player B has much ground to stand on.

[17arkOracle]

I think it would just say "to the enemies of the dwarves" if it supposed to be dwarves. Since it says "your people" I assume that's however the follower would define their people.

[Scarablob]

My interpretation of Torag's anathema is that it's not about entire races or nations of individual, but rather a more flexible version of the "show evil no mercy" rule that being like ragathiel have. The pre remaster anathema was simply "show mercy to the enemies of your peoples", so it was even more inflexible than it is now, but even then it isn't a call to genocide for me, because nothing indicate that "ennemies of your people" mean "opposing nation" or "evil race" rather than more simply "the villains that threaten your people, whoever they might be". If nation red is at war with nation blue, then the "ennemy of nation blue's people" is nation red army and government, not every individual nation red citizen. If some supervillain try to blow up nation blue, he would still be the "ennemy of nation's blue peoples", even if he's alone and don't represent an entire group of individual by himself.

The thing is simple when we consider that Torag is, as a god, very strict on the matter of responsability, and on the importance having a strong community you support. Thus, the fact that it specify "ennemies of your people", not "your ennemies" or even simply "evil" is very important. Torag doesn't mind if you spare some personal nemesis, or even some villain who only threaten those you have no responsability to protect, even if he obviously think that it's "underserved mercy". As long as the fallout of this "second chance" you granted them fall either solely on you, or on beings you have no responsability over, then it is your choice wether you want to take their live or give them a second chance.

But if those villains threaten not only you, but your people, those you have a responsability to guard according to Torag, then you shouldn't let your qualms get the better of you, and you shouldn't value that villain redemption above the safety of your people. This is for me the real meaning of this anathema. I guess it could be reworded into :

"Show undeserved mercy to those that would threaten the ones you are bound to protect."

[Plane]

Edicts and anathemas are written to be general so that players can have some flexibility. The point is not to follow them "correctly" in a way that ruins fun at the table. Try to use them as roleplay supports instead of limiters.

[Qaianna]

I’d agree with the flexible definition. I can even see a cleric of Torag defending an orc clan that’s a devoted and true ally from a dwarven mercenary raider gang without issue. In this scenario, the orcs are more ‘your people’ than the guys beating them up (and by extension weakening your own people!).

[Themetricsystem]

It doesn't have to be one or the other, in fact, I'd argue that it CAN'T be since Torag is one of, if not the only surviving mainline/core Deity that is essentially the ultimate protector and paragon of the race/ancestry they are related to.

If you fail to fight true enemies of the Dwarves you do not deserve the powers or affection of Torag. Similarly, you have your personal clan of individuals you'd consider your own people, and showing the enemies of this group continual mercy would make you a weak and undeserving patrician of the faith your character built their entire life around.

[Bluemagetim]

Now if both players A and B were playing clerics of Torag and followed their own interpretation of the anathema in a situation like the OP described would either lose their powers?
I dont think Torag cares either way. He cares that you uphold your honor and protect what you see as your people not that you protect what someone out there considers your people. Its the consistency of principle and action.

[The Raven Black]

Bluemagetim wrote:

Now if both players A and B were playing clerics of Torag and followed their own interpretation of the anathema in a situation like the OP described would either lose their powers?

I dont think Torag cares either way. He cares that you uphold your honor and protect what you see as your people not that you protect what someone out there considers your people. Its the consistency of principle and action.

Two Clerics of Torag (both either LG or LN) would act in the honorable and forthright way that Torag asks for and would clarify the misunderstanding that brings their parties into conflict and find a suitable solution.

[Calliope5431]

The Raven Black wrote:

Bluemagetim wrote:

Now if both players A and B were playing clerics of Torag and followed their own interpretation of the anathema in a situation like the OP described would either lose their powers?

I dont think Torag cares either way. He cares that you uphold your honor and protect what you see as your people not that you protect what someone out there considers your people. Its the consistency of principle and action.

Two Clerics of Torag (both either LG or LN) would act in the honorable and forthright way that Torag asks for and would clarify the misunderstanding that brings their parties into conflict and find a suitable solution.

Also worth remembering that if these clerics sanctified holy (which Torag allows), they should be acting in accordance with that too. "Proving you're undeserving of mercy" could be viewed in a lot of ways, but I'd lean towards the most charitable and kind lens, since holy sanctification is all about being charitable and kind. A holy cleric should not be LOOKING for excuses to kill people...