Chalana Arroy, a question or two.

[Squaredeal Sten]

On 12/13/2021 at 2:06 PM, Dragon said:

......... In the interests of bizarre happenings, a CA is attacked by what they presume is a run of the mill spirit; but is actually a discorporate non-chaotic shaman. The CA rolls a special Spirit Combat roll and inflicts actual damage on the shaman's body -........... Would that get the CA in serious trouble with the cult?

My take on it; it's not going to be a real issue with other members of the cult, because they have no way of knowing that the spirit in question was the shaman in question, and not just some random spirit.    And even if a member of the cult comes when the shaman is found hurt or dead, they have no reason to connect the casualty with another CA member in another place.

The only potential issue is with the god Herself.    And I see two reasons for doubt here:  First, that the Great compromise means the god will keep hands off of events unless mediated by a cult member.  Second, that it's not clear, to me at least, that the incident is direct harm to a living being.  It's just a spirit.  No flesh, no blood.  It may have consequences for the living shaman - but how far down the chain of causality would the god go?  Sure, a butterfly's wingbeats may result in a tornado a month later, but who blames the butterly?

[Alex]

1 hour ago, Squaredeal Sten said:

First, that the Great compromise means the god will keep hands off of events unless mediated by a cult member.

Which here it clearly is:  the CA initiate themself.  This is a very different case from CA simply deciding that She doesn't like some random person committing violence.

1 hour ago, Squaredeal Sten said:

Second, that it's not clear, to me at least, that the incident is direct harm to a living being.  It's just a spirit.  No flesh, no blood.  It may have consequences for the living shaman - but how far down the chain of causality would the god go?  Sure, a butterfly's wingbeats may result in a tornado a month later, but who blames the butterly?

I think by any reasonable definition the shaman is a living being, and their spirit is a part -- kinda the key part, really! -- of them. Of course, it depends on how you see the 'crit' working -- does the damage just spontaneously appear on the associated body, or is this caused by them suddenly fitting, or self-destructively sleepwalking, etc?

[Ian_W]

The other thing to think about is that we are talking about societies here.

A follower of the Healing Goddess is going to be in a network of relatives, associated cult members, or will have non-CA hospital staff.

Most of the moral dilemnas outlined above can be resolved by having a friendly cult member seeing what needs to be done, and then doing it so the Chalana Arroy stays clear of ritual pollution - ideally without orders.

For example, the boar is threatening the child. The Chalana Arroy says 'Save the child' and the Storm Bull bodyguard throws a javelin and looks forward to a very good dinner. The healer didn't say to kill the boar, and didnt do it themselves, so no ritual obligations were violated. 

Specialist healers are an incredibly useful resource. They can routinely accomplish miracles that devotees of other gods with healing powers cannot do (even without Resurrection, Regrow Limb !). So any society that wants to keep them happy and around makes sure to do what they can to keep them in good standing ... and that means helping save them from moral dilemnas.

[Darius West]

Frankly, I think any future write-up of Chalana Arroy needs to clarify what their oath actually requires of them, as it is far from clear.

I mean, arguably, a Chalana Arroy cannot use make-up as it might harm their skin, thus harming a living creature; themselves.  They may also not stay up past their bed-time for the same reason.  They may also not get pregnant as it poses an unacceptable risk to themselves and the infant, and both will be harmed to some degree in the process of giving birth.  Arguably they may not have sex, in case someone experiences chafing.   Going on adventures is right out, and completely irresponsible.  On the other hand, they can take up arms against the undead, but will be thrown out of the cult if the undead hurts them.  If they stub their toe, they are apostate according to the letter of their oath.

Obviously I am playing devil's advocate here, but I am doing so to highlight the problem of why the Chalana Arroy oath needs clarification.  I mean, we know that Yelmalio Sun Lords can't dress up in women's clothing (though they can hang around in bars), they can's sleep under a red blanket etc.  It would be really great if there was a clear set of guidelines in the cult write-up that clarified what they can and cannot do to some degree, and some notion of why they can or cannot do those things according to the interpretation of the oath.

[soltakss]

2 hours ago, Darius West said:

I mean, arguably, a Chalana Arroy cannot use make-up as it might harm their skin, thus harming a living creature; themselves.  They may also not stay up past their bed-time for the same reason.  They may also not get pregnant as it poses an unacceptable risk to themselves and the infant, and both will be harmed to some degree in the process of giving birth.  Arguably they may not have sex, in case someone experiences chafing.   Going on adventures is right out, and completely irresponsible.  On the other hand, they can take up arms against the undead, but will be thrown out of the cult if the undead hurts them.  If they stub their toe, they are apostate according to the letter of their oath.

If that is how you want to play it, then fine.

Personally, I would not want a set of restrictive rules,. as Players will always ask "Well, what about this?"

 

[Alex]

20 minutes ago, soltakss said:

Personally, I would not want a set of restrictive rules,. as Players will always ask "Well, what about this?"

People will of course have their own, and often different sweetspots.  But that's the trouble with "missing link" objections...  You find the link (or in this case, infill the gap), and in the process you've literally created two more!

[PhilHibbs]

3 hours ago, Darius West said:

Frankly, I think any future write-up of Chalana Arroy needs to clarify what their oath actually requires of them, as it is far from clear.

I demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty!

[Eff]

4 hours ago, Darius West said:

Frankly, I think any future write-up of Chalana Arroy needs to clarify what their oath actually requires of them, as it is far from clear.

I mean, arguably, a Chalana Arroy cannot use make-up as it might harm their skin, thus harming a living creature; themselves.  They may also not stay up past their bed-time for the same reason.  They may also not get pregnant as it poses an unacceptable risk to themselves and the infant, and both will be harmed to some degree in the process of giving birth.  Arguably they may not have sex, in case someone experiences chafing.   Going on adventures is right out, and completely irresponsible.  On the other hand, they can take up arms against the undead, but will be thrown out of the cult if the undead hurts them.  If they stub their toe, they are apostate according to the letter of their oath.

Obviously I am playing devil's advocate here, but I am doing so to highlight the problem of why the Chalana Arroy oath needs clarification.  I mean, we know that Yelmalio Sun Lords can't dress up in women's clothing (though they can hang around in bars), they can's sleep under a red blanket etc.  It would be really great if there was a clear set of guidelines in the cult write-up that clarified what they can and cannot do to some degree, and some notion of why they can or cannot do those things according to the interpretation of the oath.

I don't see how any of those examples are meaningful ones. Chalana Arroy is a pacifistic goddess and a merciful one. She's not intended to be one of sadistic legalism, or of perversely austere mysticism. Very obviously, you can get a paper cut, or break your own leg, without a towering figure in white scrubs leaning down to look you in the eye and tell you to get out. Let alone put on foundation, or have sex, or carry a fetus to term, or deliver a baby. There are edge cases related to stricter forms of ahimsa, but I don't see that that's an involuntary element in a game, such that you must clarify whether a White Lady gets kicked to the curb for stepping on a bug. 

The two major exceptions- undead and Chaos creatures, are of course plainly ways to make CA cultists fit into the assumptions of RQ gameplay, so you can have people you can freely beat up without the CA cultist having to plead their case each time. And if your assumptions of RQ gameplay are different, you don't even have to keep these exceptions. It all seems fairly straightforward if you start with the assumption that Chalana Arroy's pacifism is a conscious decision made with intent for a moral reason. 

[Bill the barbarian]

On 12/9/2021 at 6:08 PM, Ian_W said:

If it's weird, it's probably Chaos.

 

I have read this from more than one knowledgeable Chaosium writer (staff and other). Too hard to get cites for this so, trust me.

On 12/9/2021 at 6:08 PM, Ian_W said:

If you're a chaos-hating barbarian, it's pretty simple.

 

Life and mortality is pretty simple in this circumstance.

On 12/9/2021 at 6:08 PM, Ian_W said:

Do the Holy Senses of the Bull make it smell like chaos ? If no, then are there behaviors that indicate it might be of Gbaji the Deceiver, who Inner Storm Bull cult secrets whisper can make what is of Chaos smell pure ... asking weird questions, stuff like that ?

 

Yep, according to Cults/Lords of Terror, the bull is capable of failure. 

Nicely put together Ian!

[Bill the barbarian]

On 12/11/2021 at 11:20 AM, French Desperate WindChild said:

yes absolutly, that why I don't consider it as a "proof" for any gloranthan scientist- well... is there any scientist in glorantha 😛 ?

 

Yes...

Leonardo, p’raps, and others of his land. In the West, I imagine many such folk.

On 12/11/2021 at 6:22 PM, Shiningbrow said:

Surely the God Learners were the archetype of scientists... Theorizing, testing, modifying, experimenting...

 

Yep

On 12/10/2021 at 5:47 AM, simonh said:

In-world there are rumours of "The Wild Healer of the Rockwoods", who's apparently a pacifist broo that worships Chalana Arroy and is a healer. Cults of Prax says that chaos creatures have been known to join the cult and that the wild healer is an example.

 

Thanks, forgot the details, but yes.

On 12/10/2021 at 5:47 AM, simonh said:

That doesn't mean that everyone in Glorantha believes this broo exists, or that they are a legitimate Chalana Arroy worshiper, or that they all agree on all the facts, or what it means is any of it is true

Vey, very very very pertinent to this thread! Thanks simon!

On 12/11/2021 at 1:30 PM, AndrewTBP said:

Leonardo the Scientist: 

Arrgh , ya beat me too is. Someone had to!

On 12/14/2021 at 7:06 AM, Dragon said:

And it makes a good scenario hook. The CA did something a bit wrong, though not intended. And now needs to 'heal' things. Things like that can happen and what matters is making it right again.

 

Free scenarios, just begging to be ran!

On 12/18/2021 at 8:31 AM, Bohemond said:

I'm a fan of trying to get players out of the contemporary mindset as much as possible.

Yep

 

[Darius West]

9 hours ago, Eff said:

I don't see how any of those examples are meaningful ones. Chalana Arroy is a pacifistic goddess and a merciful one. She's not intended to be one of sadistic legalism, or of perversely austere mysticism.

I completely disagree.  The fact is that a poorly worded oath that has no clarification as to what it means in practice can turn a pacifistic healer deity into a sadistic legalist and perversely austere mystic.  This is repeated over and over again IRL religions, where the message is lost and becomes a legalistic creed.  If you WANT a Chalana Arroy who isn't these negative things, then we NEED clear statements about what she can and cannot do, so we don't wind up with the perverse examples I have offered becoming the measure of the cult, because they are all perfectly reasonable interpretations of the "harm no living thing" oath that they swear.  This is one way that sects develop irl btw.

10 hours ago, PhilHibbs said:

I demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty!

That's fine, but you'll be apostate inside a day.

11 hours ago, soltakss said:

If that is how you want to play it, then fine.  Personally, I would not want a set of restrictive rules,. as Players will always ask "Well, what about this?"

No, I don't want to play Chalana Arroy this way, that is the point.  If we don't have some proper idea of how the "harm no living thing" oath works in practice, it can be misinterpreted to absurd extremes.  That was the point I was making.  I mean, consider the history of the Hippocratic Oath; it's pretty checkered, and completely irrelevant today, as 'first do no harm' has been replaced by 'first get insurance' etc. in practice.

[PhilHibbs]

1 hour ago, Darius West said:

I completely disagree.  The fact is that a poorly worded oath that has no clarification as to what it means in practice can turn a pacifistic healer deity into a sadistic legalist and perversely austere mystic.

Yup! Wonderful, isn't it?

[Darius West]

24 minutes ago, PhilHibbs said:

Yup! Wonderful, isn't it?

If you want perverse outcomes it is just great.

[French Desperate WindChild]

when people have disagreement about what the god wants, it means at least one of them is in a wrong way. The god must say something to fix it (or not if it is its pleasure of course, don't want to challenge any god)

in our case there are two levels:

1) the table

what Chalana Arroy wants in your (generic one) table. That's up to the GM

what Chalana Arroy PC understands and applies. That's up to the PC (with maybe some GM's help, to clarify what is heresy / blasphemy / wrong actions /... or not)

 

2) the canon

what Chaosium defines as rules

what Chaosium forgot and consider it should be fixed later,

what Chaosium let open to GM, for ever

 

 @Darius West you surprised me with your examples (pregnancy, sex, etc...) I never faced this issue but for sure, if I were on the table and had to answer a player, I would need some time to imagine something.

After thinking, the joker cards, as a white lady, you are blessed by your goddess : you and your baby (or partner, depending on what is the point) will not suffer or anything you imagine. The point is the intent (so it means no sadomasochism or activity like that)

But yes I understand there are questions, and depending on people there may be difficult to propose an unanimous answer

Now, should it be fixed in a chalana arroy cult books, and do the same for other gods

It depends on how many people would like to buy and read this kind of work(so many gods, so many questions, so many pages to create) Probably not enough to sacrifice the rest, and even not enough to get a return on the investment

seems to me this kind of questions should be answered in this forum (issue with those who don't know the forum or english, of course), with modesty (" I manage it like that" and not "you must manage it like that")

 

 

[Eff]

4 hours ago, Darius West said:

I completely disagree.  The fact is that a poorly worded oath that has no clarification as to what it means in practice can turn a pacifistic healer deity into a sadistic legalist and perversely austere mystic.  This is repeated over and over again IRL religions, where the message is lost and becomes a legalistic creed.  If you WANT a Chalana Arroy who isn't these negative things, then we NEED clear statements about what she can and cannot do, so we don't wind up with the perverse examples I have offered becoming the measure of the cult, because they are all perfectly reasonable interpretations of the "harm no living thing" oath that they swear.  This is one way that sects develop irl btw.

Nope! There are interpretative tools of some antiquity that, in the extremely unlikely event that a player or prospective player is genuinely confused by how ahimsa and pacifism work, can be used to clarify such a question. For example, looking at the social function of the cult and the intent of its divine founder who enforces said oath. 

And if Chalana Arroy is speaking to you and saying that she might just put all the responsibility for taking any risk that might result in harm on the person doing so, you never know, then I highly doubt any official Chaosium statement would convince her to subside. 

[Alex]

53 minutes ago, Eff said:

For example, looking at the social function of the cult and the intent of its divine founder who enforces said oath. 

I very much agree.  These questions come down to:  what happens in the temporal cult structure if a question arises as to correct religious observance?  And how does the deity 'act' (however personally or impersonally one sees that happening in terms of the nature of Glorantha and Compromise) in terms of withholding magic, sending SoR, speaking to the initiate in a divinatory manner, and so on.  Essentially both coming down to, "roleplay it out".  I think that's a much more apt approach than exhaustive and mechanistic rules.  Which would be more evocative of in particular sorcery, though how extensively that's desirable or doable in an RPG is questionable, too.

[Shiningbrow]

13 hours ago, Eff said:

Nope! There are interpretative tools of some antiquity that, in the extremely unlikely event that a player or prospective player is genuinely confused by how ahimsa and pacifism work, can be used to clarify such a question. For example, looking at the social function of the cult and the intent of its divine founder who enforces said oath. 

And if Chalana Arroy is speaking to you and saying that she might just put all the responsibility for taking any risk that might result in harm on the person doing so, you never know, then I highly doubt any official Chaosium statement would convince her to subside. 

I'm working @Darius Weston this, although I don't need a full list of rules to follow... Just a clarification, or a paragraph. An actual "oath", rather than the suggestion of one.

While the RL examples mentioned above are obvious, they do lack that vital element of a real god taking away one's miraculous healing powers of you transgress... 

I could just say, "play your CA" how you want, and that could allow for a multitude of variations, they may take away from Greg's intent (which is obviously fine, btw).

Earlier, we've read that even picking up a shield to stop getting hit was apparently a violation of the oath (let alone hitting something with it - including undead or Chaos). That's surprised quite a few here... So, clearly clarification would be good.

Also, I'd like to know why they're all vegetarian, given a) all plants are life, and b) the CA isn't doing the killing or harming when an animal is killed & butchered... Why is a acceptable, but b is not? Pretty arbitrary to me... 

[Shiningbrow]

I'll probably start a separate thread on a topic like this, but..... 

I presume we'd all be fine with a CA learning sorcery to heal, fight diseases, and perhaps a range of other innocuous spells.

But, what about Dampen Damage? RAW, and only currently in the RQG, that requires using the Death Rune. And I'd presume a few might take issue with that (especially CA herself).

Yeah, I get that someone will want to say "just use a different Rune combination, and create a spell with the same effect".

But... Do any here think using Dampen Damage with Death Rune would be ok??? Is such knowledge forbidden?

[Bill the barbarian]

19 hours ago, Darius West said:

If you want perverse outcomes it is just great.

Darius, our world does not come with code like this so, assuming you wish, you can institute it. Perhaps this is one thing about our world ya figure can be better. Why have your game be like reality. Anyone for Advanced Attorneys and Accountants (2nd Ed. Blue Cover)? Me, I tone down slavery and women abuse. Have it your way. Of course soltakss, moi and the horses we rode in on (hell all members if this website for that matter... and their horses) can have it their way. They paid for the game after all!

If you do want an exacting simulation, go for it. Hell, skies the limits. (See Role Master and Chivalry and Sorcery for proof)! Me, I prefer a looser and wildly inconstant world like ours but that is just me. "The rules don’t make sense, they are inconsistent and very illogical", I can relate. You should try the marble I live on.

Cheers

Edited January 7, 2022 by Bill the barbarian

[Eff]

1 hour ago, Shiningbrow said:

I'm working @Darius Weston this, although I don't need a full list of rules to follow... Just a clarification, or a paragraph. An actual "oath", rather than the suggestion of one.

While the RL examples mentioned above are obvious, they do lack that vital element of a real god taking away one's miraculous healing powers of you transgress... 

I could just say, "play your CA" how you want, and that could allow for a multitude of variations, they may take away from Greg's intent (which is obviously fine, btw).

Earlier, we've read that even picking up a shield to stop getting hit was apparently a violation of the oath (let alone hitting something with it - including undead or Chaos). That's surprised quite a few here... So, clearly clarification would be good.

Also, I'd like to know why they're all vegetarian, given a) all plants are life, and b) the CA isn't doing the killing or harming when an animal is killed & butchered... Why is a acceptable, but b is not? Pretty arbitrary to me... 

The reason Chalana Arroy worshipers are vegetarians is that, fairly obviously, one cannot exist in the world without causing some form of harm to something, on an abstract level. But simply rejecting the entirety of the world and starving oneself to death does nothing to reduce that harm. So in order to carry out the task of healing, some compromises are obviously necessary and implicit.

Now, there are all kinds of ethical arguments used in the real world for vegetarianism that fit Glorantha equally well. Especially if you make the fairly straightforward assumption that eating intelligent plants is also not allowed. So we can assume that these arguments are applied- animals are generally capable of feeling fear and pain and eating them requires creating those things in the process of killing them, so CA initiates refrain from meat when they can.

And this is a way to resolve most of these out-of-game tensions- the point is for the Chalana Arroy initiate to actively work to heal harms in the world, and part of that is neutral provision of care, and picking up a shield makes one significantly less neutral, and so it is something that can easily violate the terms of the oath by making them a partial or biased healer. Especially if the idea is trying to lawyer your way out of the spirit of the oath.

And of course, if you think that vegetarianism is incoherent and that CA initiates should be going about armored or even armed, the game doesn't break if you make that decision. So I fail to see what offering precise, legalistic definitions offers.

[Alex]

2 hours ago, Shiningbrow said:

Just a clarification, or a paragraph. An actual "oath", rather than the suggestion of one.

This'd be a very on-brand addition, certainly, but I find it hard to imagine it addressing any of the alleged problems or unacceptable uncertainties in it.  Do we imagine that dodgy Orlanthi poetry will give us a tight definition of "harm", a detailed rationale for the distinction between plants and animals, or specific rulings on whether your Telmori neighbours are chaos monsters for these purposes?  I'd guess it would be vaguer than what we currently have, if anything.

[Darius West]

10 hours ago, Bill the barbarian said:

Darius, our world does not come with code like this so, assuming you wish, you can institute it. Perhaps this is one thing about our world ya figure can be better.

Bill, that is simply incorrect.  Companies issue policy statements, as do governments, about what constitutes the expected standard of conduct for their representatives are.  The clergy have literal libraries full of what constitutes breaches of priestly and monastic codes and the legal reasoning as to why.  Ditto for medics and the police.  Notions of legal requirements for group membership go back to written documents from Egypt around 25th century BC, and the supporting legal reasoning goes back to at least  the 22nd Century BC and likely before.  These things have been an incredibly important part of religious life in the bronze age and before, so why shouldn't they be a part of Glorantha?  Laziness. That's why.

Chalana Arroy requires its members to swear an oath that is, frankly, crippling, if you take it literally.  I have enjoyed playing a crime lord (lady) Chalana Arroy who worked hard twisting the requirements of those rules, and so I know the arguments pretty well now, as my evil Chalana Arroy High Priestess Malicia of Horn Gate abused the interpretation of them well past breaking point, turning strict adherence to the oath into a political weapon that she used to get rivals ejected, censured, demoted, disciplined, fined, and even sent on involuntary hero quests (the death sentence).  There is no cult which needs a clarification as to its membership requirements as much as Chalana Arroy, as its open ended oath is almost impossible to follow in its present form.  Having utterly abused the system, I am arguing for reform as I am overly aware of its appalling weaknesses.

8 hours ago, Alex said:

This'd be a very on-brand addition, certainly, but I find it hard to imagine it addressing any of the alleged problems or unacceptable uncertainties in it.  Do we imagine that dodgy Orlanthi poetry will give us a tight definition of "harm", a detailed rationale for the distinction between plants and animals, or specific rulings on whether your Telmori neighbours are chaos monsters for these purposes?  I'd guess it would be vaguer than what we currently have, if anything.

Dodgy Orlanthi poetry is not where the truth of these things lie at all, and is a gross cultural mis-characterization of the problem.  The fact is that the Orlanthi do have a written tradition, and practicing Law Speakers in the form of the Lhankor Mhys, who cover issues of legality, whatever they may be.  Cults themselves will also have a body of cult lore that will detail what their deity considers permissible and what is not acceptable.  How do we know this?  Well, if a deity is annoyed, they will either send spirits of retribution at you, or they may even cast you from the cult, nullifying your connection to the deity, and costing you all your Rune Points.  It is perfectly reasonable for characters within the game world to have a somewhat exaggerated knowledge of how not to annoy their deity, as for initiates this should be a pretty major concern.  Now some deities will be pretty laid back about personal conduct, and will allow characters a lot of moral leeway provided they take the 'hard red lines thou shalt not cross' very seriously.  Orlanth for example doesn't care about adultery, theft, grievous bodily harm, abduction, hate crimes, etc, as the deity did all those things, but draws a big line against chaos worship, secret murder, kinslaying, rape, and a few other things.  Now while Chalana Arroy's "Harm no living thing" sounds like a comparatively small requirement, the more you think about it, the more onerous and impossible it becomes, if taken literally.

[Alex]

6 minutes ago, Darius West said:

Dodgy Orlanthi poetry is not where the truth of these things lie at all, and is a gross cultural mis-characterization of the problem.

It's the precise point I was replying to, thus mischaracterises nothing.  Evidently we disagree wildly on the nature of "the problem", but I see little value in doing so in a heated or uncivil manner.

[Dragon]

11 hours ago, Shiningbrow said:

I'll probably start a separate thread on a topic like this, but..... 

I presume we'd all be fine with a CA learning sorcery to heal, fight diseases, and perhaps a range of other innocuous spells.

But, what about Dampen Damage? RAW, and only currently in the RQG, that requires using the Death Rune. And I'd presume a few might take issue with that (especially CA herself).

Yeah, I get that someone will want to say "just use a different Rune combination, and create a spell with the same effect".

But... Do any here think using Dampen Damage with Death Rune would be ok??? Is such knowledge forbidden?

You would have a point if the CA sorcerer had mastered Death.

I think you are reading the wrong implication in Dampen Damage. Dampen Damage is Death and Dispel. I think it is intended that a CA sorcerer would tend to master Life, which provides insight to Death. And casting a spell which dispels death in the parlance of sorcery is quite acceptable. The same can be said for Ward Against Weapons.

A CA sorcerer casting Boon of Kargan Tor, which is Death and Summon would be a completely different prospect. That would be akin to casting Bladesharp on your friend's sword, a prohibited spell to CAs.

Mastering Life make casting Mend Flesh and Accelerate Healing easier and quicker, because it is mastered rather than insight. Mastering Death makes casting Dampen Damage and Ward Against Weapons quicker and easier.

Animate Death requires both Death and Life, and therefore it seems would nearly always be cast with one of them being via insight. 

Waiting patiently for more sorcerous spells that involve Life. And Harmony.

[Joerg]

Chalana Arroy may have come from Yelm's Court, one of the most rigid places in terms of acceptable behavior I can imagine in Glorantha. Obeying a strict set of behavioral dictums may have been in the nature of the cult when it was adopted by the Orlanthi.