RĀJAMAṆḌALA [first recension].
Play with at least six players. One player is appointed Emperor (Samrāṭa), whose identity is known to everyone. The remaining players are vassal kings (Raja), two of whom are spies (Guptacara), known to each other but not to the Emperor or the other players, and the remaining are loyals (Anurāga). Each king publicly chooses a seal (mudra), which the Emperor keeps several copies of – each copy of a seal is labelled by numbers 1, 2, 3 …
Each round, the following events occur:
If all spies are killed, the game ends with victory for the emperor. If all loyals are killed, Rajahatya (assassination) commences and the game ends with victory for the spies. The loyal kings win whatever they earned from the Emperor for their information, and are neutral to the outcome of the game between the Emperor and the spies.
TRANSCRIPT.
INITIAL NOTES.
It would hardly have been useful to demonstrate my own manipulation and cunning to the guards, thus I appointed myself emperor each game, claiming to the guards that it was by chance. It was my hope that this would cause them to superstitiously believe that I was some sort of chosen hero.
Game 1. Emperor: Cāṇakya.
Round 1.
Victim: Rājastambha.
Alibis: Suhavis for Sulabhin. Sulabhin for Suhavis.
Inferences: One of Sarpamālin, Śaśaloman is a spy OR Suhavis, Sulabhin are both spies.
Behavioural observations: Sulabhin’s surprise at Suhavis giving him an alibi seemed genuine. Unlikely for them to both be spies.
Emperor shows mercy.
Round 2.
Victim: Sarpamālin.
Alibis: Śaśaloman for Suhavis. Suhavis for Sulabhin.
Inferences: Śaśaloman is a spy OR Suhavis and Sulabhin are both spies.
Behavioural observations: None.
Emperor executes Śaśaloman.
Round 3 unnecessary as the surviving player would immediately be executed.
Loyalist victory.
Teachings: Omit information that incriminates yourself; do not kill the only other possible suspect.
Game 2. Emperor: Cāṇakya.
Round 1.
Victim: Suhavis.
Alibis: Sulabhin for Rājastambha.
Inferences: One of Sulabhin, Sarpamālin, Śaśaloman is a spy. One of Rājastambha, Sarpamālin, Śaśaloman is a spy (due to missing alibi).
Behavioural observations: None.
Emperor shows mercy.
Round 2.
Victim: Sulabhin.
Alibis: Śaśaloman for Rājastambha.
Inferences: One of Sarpamālin, Śaśaloman is a spy. One of Rājastambha, Sarpamālin is a spy.
Behavioural observations: The spy is taking my advice from the last game with regards to omitting self-incriminating evidence. Yet Rājastambha remains alive, despite being vouched for the previous round. While Sulabhin was an equally good target to kill, I do not believe the spy was clever enough to realize that I was also suspecting people on basis of the missing alibi. Upon interrogation, Rājastambha claimed: “I didn’t kill Sulabhin, I haven’t killed anyone.” I believe him; the dice have not given him the opportunity to kill yet.
Emperor executes Rājastambha.
Round 3 unnecessary as the surviving player would immediately be executed.
Loyalist victory.
Teachings: Omitting information also makes you suspicious, decide wisely; more generally behave as a loyal would, make a full-fledged story that you yourself can believe.
Game 3. Emperor: Cāṇakya.
Round 1.
Victim: Suhavis.
Alibis: Rājastambha for Sulabhin. Sulabhin for Rājastambha. Sarpamālin for Rājastambha.
Inference: One of Sarpamālin, Śaśaloman is a spy OR Rājastambha, Sulabhin are both spies. One of Rājastambha, Sulabhin, Sarpamālin is a spy (because of excess alibi).
Behavioural observations: None.
Emperor shows mercy.
Round 2.
Victim: Śaśaloman.
Alibis: Rājastambha for Sulabhin. Sulabhin for Rājastambha. Sarpamālin for Sulabhin.
Inference: Sarpamālin is a spy OR Rājastambha, Sulabhin are both spies.
Behavioural observations: Oh come on.
Emperor executes Rājastambha.
Round 3 unnecessary as the surviving player would immediately be executed.
Loyalist victory.
Teachings: Don’t behave predictably; don’t do things that would be much more unlikely if you were innocent i.e. maintain plausible deniability; recognize that your opponent is intelligent too.
Character examination notes: Suhavis, Rājastambha and Sulabhin appear gullible, but Suhavis seems cowardly and uncreative. Rājastambha made an honest effort to learn what I taught him, even though his own attempts to execute failed. The latter fact demonstrates that he was not motivated by scholarly purpose, but by sympathy towards me. From his accent, he is not a native of Magadha, and is likely of Mathura; he is also of immense raw strength, which may be useful in close combat. Sarpamālin and Śaśaloman are of no use to me.
