Trickery for and against PC's

by Gregory W. Detwiler

Intrigue and just plain dirty tricks are tactics that most players-and many
DMs-ignore during an AD&D(R) campaign. This can be a fatal mistake, as it
reduces all adventures to a matter of sheer brute strength, where the PCs
often are either fatally overmatched or not challenged at all in the
opposition. Very often subtlety is defined only by the dungeon-delvers'
maxim, "Run away, run away!" It is useful so far as it goes, but he who
fights and runs away will live to run another day only if he has no plans to 
defeat the enemy. This article will give examples of how to outwit an enemy
on both the battlefield and the diplomatic front.
  My sources are the culmination of thousands of years of accumulated
wisdom. Most come from China: the Orient places greater emphasis on
patience, trickery, stealth, and the indirect approach than does western
culture. The ancient general Sun Tzu's _Art of War_ is a classic, even in
the western world of modern times. Another is _The Book of Stratagems_, a
collection of 36 maxims applicable equally to warfare and normal life. The
first 18 appeared in the west in 1991, thanks to Swiss author Haro Von
Senger and translator Myron B. Gubitz (Viking Penguin). As of this writing,
I have no idea if the other 18 have appeared yet. My oriental collection is
rounded out with accounts of Mongol trickery gleamed from various works
concerning Ghenghis Khan and his successors.
  In the West, of course, the premier political "how-to" manual is _The
Prince_, by Florentine diplomat Niccolo Machiavelli. He wrote in Renaissance 
Italy, when the peninsula was split up into numerous city states like those
of ancient Greece. Intrigue and poisoning (this was the Borgias' time of
glory) were common, and Machiavelli himself was in exile when he wrote his
book. In fact, he called it _The Prince_ because he hoped to use it to
butter up a real prince and be taken back into the diplomatic game. Even if
you've never heard of Machiavelli before, this fact alone should tell you
something about how cynical (if realistic) his book is. Still, if the PCs
are too powerful for their own good, Machiavelli and Sun Tzu can be a DM's
best friends.
  The advice herein is best used in a campaign setting with many different
power groups. _The Art of War_ and _The Book of Stratagems_ were both
written during the Time of Warring States in China, when that land was split 
up into many small kingdoms, as with Renaissance Italy. In this atmosphere
of shifting alliances, the entire strategic situation could be altered not
merely by a single battle, but by the death or overthrow of a single ruler.
If your group of power gamers is in such a campaign setting-and even if
they're not-you can use the accumulated lore in these books to make life
extremely miserable for them and their characters.

Military Matters 

Sun Tzu states that it is better to take an enemy state intact than to ruin
it, and that it is likewise better to capture the enemy's army than wipe it
out. After all, the losers and their land will be the victor's new subjects
and property; a smoking waste land offers little opportunity for looting
and/or taxation. To this ancient general, to subdue the enemy without
fighting is the peak of military skill, even better that winning a hundred
battles. As can be imagined, he places greater preference of trickery and
diplomacy than on sheer military might.
  Continuing with Sun Tzu, we learn that the first priority in war is to
disrupt the enemy's strategy: burn the bridges on his planned line of march, 
etc. Next in impor- tance is to use diplomacy to disrupt his alliances (if
any). Attacking the enemy's army is only the third best strategy, and worst
of all is attacking his cities. Not only does this risk destroying property
and loot, but in Sun Tzu's time, it could take half a year to make all the
preparations necessary to storm a fortified city, increasing the expense of
the war (Sun Tzu favors quick victories). In real life, the commanding
general would often lose patience and attack with a simple
ladders-on-the-walls assault, losing up to a third of his army without
taking the objective.
  For practical applications, consider the case when your player characters
are military commanders. If they ignore Sun Tzu's first two maxims, they may 
find not only the enemy army in a superior defensive position but also an
alliance of neigh- boring kingdoms or tribes may gang up on them as well. If 
their one chance of victory is to destroy the original foe then turn on the
alliance, time is not on the PCs' side. They will be tempted to risk high
casualties by attacking before they've finished their preparations. This
will not endear them to what's left of their troops, particularly if there
is little or no plunder if they win despite the odds. The same goes for
cities, if most of the loot is destroyed by accident during the assault or
deliberately destroyed by the losers.
  The mere fact that the PCs are attacking gives their foe the advantage of
being the defender. Stratagem #4 from _The Book of Stratagems_, "Await the
Exhausted Enemy at Your Ease," points this out. The PCs' army may have to
march a long way just to reach the foe, stretching supply lines and possibly 
suffering partisan or guerrilla
attacks. (Note: The difference between partisans and guerrillas is that
partisans are irregulars who fight in support of the regular army, as did
the Russian partisans in World War II, while guerrillas fight without
military support, a la the French Resistance.) Supplies may be so low when
they arrive that they have to attack the enemy immediately, just to secure
stocks of food and water. Sun Tzu frowns on this, not least because the
enemy may "abandon" such stocks, which turn out to be poisoned.
  _The Book of Stratagems_ provides the example of the Chinese kingdom of
Qi, which invaded its neighbor Wei, then retreated when the arrogant Wei
general counterattacked. The Qi general let all 100,000 of this soldiers
have campfires the first night of the retreat, but the next night, two
soldiers had to share the same campfire, reducing the number of fires the
Wei scouts could see to 50,000. The night after that, only 30,000 fires
could be seen, though the Qi army remained the same size as always. The Wei
general, of course, thought that most of the Qi force had deserted and
pressed ahead of the main army with his fastest units to be in at the kill.
Needless to say, the kill was of his own army, which was ambushed after
exhausting itself by covering two days' worth of ground in a single day's
forced march. The Wei general killed himself in disgrace. Theoretically,
AD&D characters can avoid this sort of trap through divination magic, if
they remember to use it.
  While thoughts of supplies are still fresh in your minds, Stratagem #7 is
"Create Something from Nothing": the use of rumors, dummy troops, and
similar deceptions to fool the enemy. I'll come back to it in the political
chapter, but for now, we'll just look at the siege of Yongqiu. That city was 
closely besieged and running short of arrows, so the defenders came up with
a cunning plan. Creating a bogus force of straw dummies, they lowered them
over the walls at night as if they were a group of real soldiers launching a 
sortie. The vigilant besiegers promptly pincushioned them with arrows, which 
were "recycled" when the dummies were hauled back up. Imagine richly
dressing the dummies to simulate noblemen in the AD&D game: PCs may waste
magic arrows in the attempt to bring them down.
  This was actually two tricks in one. The defenders of Yongqiu lowered the
dummies every night, harvesting arrows until the besiegers finally caught
on. When no more archery barrages greeted the dummies, a force of _real_
soldiers came down the ropes and plowed into the surprised archers, thus
causing so much confusion that the rest of the garrison was able to sortie
and destroy the enemy.
  The stratagems include all sorts of good tricks, such as diversionary
attacks (Strata- gem #6: "Clamor in the East, Attack in the West"), taking
advantage of the enemy when there is chaos in his own ranks or country
(Stratagem #5: "Loot a Burning House"), and the similar tactic of seizing
any opportunity that comes along (Stratagem #12: "Seize the Opportunity to
Lead the Sheep Away"). For another case of alliance warfare, however, we
should try Stratagem #2: "Besiege Wei To Rescue Zhao." This is a prime
example of why you should always try to disrupt the enemy's alliances.
  The Chinese kingdom of Zhao was invaded by the much more powerful state of 
Wei, and Zhao promptly asked its ally Qi to come to the rescue. Qi did so,
not by marching directly to aid Zhao's besieged capitol, but by invading Wei 
to attack _its_ capitol. The Wei general was thus forced to break off the
siege and force-march back home, where his exhausted troops were-you guessed 
it-ambushed and destroyed by the army of Qi, which was leisurely awaiting
their arrival in a secure position. Single-minded commanders who don't pay
attention to their kingdom's other borders may have to withdraw from a
successful campaign at the most inconvenient times, often to find their
supply bases overrun by a new enemy.
  Stratagem #16, "To Catch Something, First Let It Go," is particularly
poignant for China because it was used against her own armies so many times
by the Mongols. Shrewd battlefield psychologists, the Mongols realized that
trapping soldiers in a position from which there was no escape caused them
to fight to the death with the strength of despair. Thus, the Mongols always 
took care to press the enemy army hard on all sides but one, seemingly
leaving an avenue of escape open. With this apparent "way out," the enemy
troops would break ranks and flee in panic, only to be run down by the more
mobile Mongols and easily butchered. A descendant of Davy Crockett once said 
that "If there was a back door at the Alamo, Davy would have found it'' If
Ghenghis Khan had been running the siege instead of Santa Ana, there _would_ 
have been a "back door."
  Mongol tricks and stratagems could form a chapter in themselves. For
instance, they knew that refugees from disaster liked to congregate in
familiar surroundings. Thus, to make sure that they had exterminated all
human life in an invaded area, they would send troops of horsemen back into
areas they had over run a week ago in surprise sweeps, butchering all those
whom they missed the first time they came through. Add to that their
unpleasant habit of driving captives before them as cover when assaulting
fortifications (which would give good PCs, at least, an acute moral
dilemma), and it is easy to understand why they were feared throughout Asia.
  Icy rivers and Mongols made a lethal combination. During the winter, they
would often let cattle from their commissariat stray near a frozen river. If 
the starving peasants (_all_ peasants are usually starving, particularly in
winter) on the other side crossed and herded the cows back, the Mongols knew 
the ice was thick enough for the army to cross in safety. On one occasion in 
Russia, they even took up positions on the frozen river itself to await the
Russian attack. The Russian knights charged, and their horses skidded on the 
ice and piled up. Needless to say, the Russians lost, and it was not until
after their defeat that they realized the Mongols had dusted the ice on
their side of the river with soil and ashes to provide decent footing.
  Fittingly for our last example, we combine military and political matters. 
Stratagem #9 is "Observe the Fire on the Opposite Shore," which means
sitting tight while the enemy undergoes a crisis, waiting until he is
weakened enough for you destroy. A prime example is a war between your enemy 
and a neighbor: this version is called "Sit on the Mountain and Watch the
Tigers Fight." Agents provocateur who can actually stir up a war between two 
powers are greatly prized, while you become what the Chinese called "the
laughing third party,'' or "the laughing third." In western history, the
prime exam- ple is that of the warriors of Islam, who made their initial
burst of conquests in the Middle East after the Persian and Byzantine
Empires had exhausted each other in a long-lasting war.




Politics and Intrigue

For this field, we will concentrate on _The Book of Stratagems_ and _The
Prince_ as reference works. Role-players will be particularly interested in
this chapter.
  Let's start with flattery. Buttering up an intended victim, then killing
him when he's caught off guard, is a time-honored component of plotting all
over the world. The stratagem for this is #10, known variously as "Hide Your 
Dagger Behind a Smile" or "Honey in the Mouth, Sword in the Belt."
Machiavelli tells you how to guard against this, but in a rather grim
manner. You see, he believes that a secure ruler should be feared, though
not hated or despised. The only way to guard your self against flattery is
to let men know that they will not offend you by speaking the truth.
Unfortunately, when everyone feels he can tell you the truth, you lose
respect. In other words, you can't win.
  Yes, that's right: Machiavelli said a ruler should be feared, but not
hated. In his view, this means he must be a just ruler, but so strict in
punishing wrongdoers that he doesn't mind being charged with cruelty for the 
sake of keeping his subjects united and faithful. Punishment, after all,
involves only individuals, whereas their crimes affect the entire community. 
Go for fear first, without provoking hatred as well through unjust rule, and 
hope for the best. For as Machiavelli commented, men love people of their
own free will, but fear at the will of the prince.
  By now, all you players of good-aligned characters must be gritting your
teeth. Well, keep on gritting, because the worst is yet to come. PC
commanders are often given command of invasion forces to annex a new piece
of territory, which is then often granted to the conquering commander as a
reward. According to Machiavelli, the very first thing you should do when
taking over is _immediately_ to kill everyone who might make trouble in the
future, particularly those connected with the old power structure.
Eventually, the survivors will forget about it, because all the bloody work
was done at the very start of your reign. If you commit all your cruelties
at once, says Machiavelli, then you won't have to repeat them every day and
provide a continuous source of friction. PCs and DMs alike who wonder how
some evil kingdoms can be stable may find the explanation here.
  Regarding everyone else in your new conquest, Machiavelli says that if the 
area was formerly a free state, the only way securely to rule it is to
"despoil" (i.e., destroy) it. If you don't, you will always have to live
with the threat of rebellion. You might be able to stave off the inevitable
for a while if you allow the people to live under their old laws, with
loyalty and the payment of taxes to you as the only conformity required. The 
ancient Persians did this, but found out when fighting Alexander the Great
that this did not produce overly enthusiastic levies in battle. When the
Persian satraps were kicked out or slain, the common people rolled over and
played dead for Alexander. Note that this is not the case for kingdoms that
were ruthless despotisms; in that case, the people merely exchange one
tyrant for another, with no real incentive to rebel. Paladins should not be
assigned to rule conquered populations!
  As far back as the _DUNGEON MASTER(TM) Guide_ in the original edition of
the AD&D game, we find mention of the fact that serfs and peasants are
generally kept unarmed, so that it takes rebels longer to muster an army.
However, it _does_ happen eventually, perhaps with outside support.
Machiavelli frowns on disarming a newly conquered populace, and additionally 
states that if you conquer an unarmed people, you should arm them at the
first opportunity. Not only does this increase the number of soldiers at
your disposal, but it lets your newfound subjects know that 1) you are so
secure in your power that you do not fear them, and 2) you trust them, both
as subjects and as people capable of defending themselves. If you fail to
arm them, or disarm them, then you as look weak and cowardly, to say nothing 
of tacitly admitting that you don't trust them. This creates resentment
which can start a rebellion in the first place, and you can bet that any
hostile neighbors will eagerly take advantage of the split in your kingdom
to support the rebels with training and arms. Essentially, it all comes back 
to the point that if you're fair when ruling, you don't have to fear a
rebellion; if not, then the people will revolt, arms or no.
  Part of the business of overthrowing a ruler consists of the elimination
of his advisors. You can assassinate them out right, but it is best if you
can cause a falling-out between them and the ruler, so that he does the job
himself and incurs fear and distrust among the survivors. This fits in with
Stratagem #3, "Kill with a Borrowed Knife." Rumors and slander can cause a
ruler to act unwisely against an advisor, and it is here that we return to
the previously mentioned stratagem "Create Something from Nothing." It is
also called "Three Men Make a Tiger," from a case in the book. An emperor
was asked by an advisor (whom he later slew due to slander-induced distrust) 
if he would believe it if one or two men swore that a tiger had entered his
fortified city from the forest outside. The emperor said "No," but then
commented that if _three_ men swore there was a tiger loose in the city,
then it must be true. Oh, no, it doesn't!
  Modern readers can see in this a repeat of Hitler's maxim "A big, bold
lie, repeated often enough, will fool most people." A shrewd propaganda
campaign, which admittedly is more likely in a modern or futuristic SF game
setting than a fantasy one, can turn people against even the most heroic
characters in a surprisingly short time. Crime lords created by GMs should
invest in media outlets like newspaper chains or TV stations, slandering
super heros as vigilantes at every opportunity. Why do you think one of the
superhero games was called _Villains and Vigilantes_?
  If the PC in any game system wants to fight corruption, he should publicly 
(and harshly) punish the first crooks he catches, then keep a close eye on
all other suspects to see how they react. This follows Stratagem #13, "Beat
the Grass to Startle the Snake." A corrupt Chinese prefect received an
official complaint from the people in his district against his secretary,
who was guilty of precisely the same crimes he was. This shook him up so
much that he commented in his diary that the petitioners had only beaten the 
grass, but he was already a frightened snake.
  Let's drop down to personal relations now. In virtually any game system,
one of the biggest problems the referee has is dealing with players whose
characters have too much power. With an entire party of supercharacters,
this problem is compounded, but it also bears within it the seeds of its own 
solution. We return once more to the stratagem "Kill with a Borrowed Knife."
  The kingdom of Qi had three powerful knights, Gongsun Jie, Tian Kaijiang,
and Gu Yezi, who were so arrogant and secure in their power that they were
grossly disrespectful of their kingdom's Chief Minister, one Duke Yanzi.
When he complained of their behavior to the king, that worthy sadly replied
that the knights were too powerful for him to punish (sound like any PCs you 
know?). Taking matters into his own hands, Tanzi plucked the two best
peaches from the finest tree in the king's garden and sent them to the three 
knights via messenger, with the news that the two peaches must go to the two 
most valiant knights.
  Gongsun Jie immediately spoke up, claiming to have killed a wild boar with 
his bare hands, as well as capturing a tiger in the same manner. Needless to 
say, he grabbed a peach as soon as he was done talking. Tian Kaijiang routed 
two entire armies with just his (nonmagical) sword and no companions,
finishing his story by snatching up the other peach. Then Gu Yezi spoke.
  When the third knight was fording the Yellow River on horseback, a giant
turtle grabbed his steed and made off with it, dismounting him at the same
time. Not willing to give up his horse, Gu Yezi sank to the river bottom,
first running a hundred steps upstream and then, after having gotten his
bearings, ran nine miles downstream (yes, _ran_, even though he was
underwater and probably wearing armor), finally killing the turtle and
rescuing his horse. When the locals saw him emerge from the depths of the
river with the trophy head of the turtle in one hand and his horse's tail in 
the other, they promptly mistook him for a river god. By now, of course, the 
peaches were gone, so he drew his sword and demanded one.
  The other two knights were so ashamed of their greed that they handed over 
both their peaches to Gu Yezi, then committed suicide. Immediately
afterwards, Gu Yezi himself felt guilt, both for having brought about the
deaths of his comrades and for bragging about himself. Naturally, he
committed suicide as well, and it is a measure of his arrogance that with
his last words, he lamented the greed of his fellows, commenting that if
they had given him one peach and split the other in two to share between
them, then everyone would have gotten what he had coming to him. Thus ends
the story known in China as "Two Peaches Kill Three Knights."
  In real (gaming) life, of course, your players won't actually have their
characters commit suicide. What's more likely to happen is that they'll
fight among themselves and kill each other for the prize. But then, this
sort of thing would only happen when we have high-level characters with
equally large egos. I mean, how many players with powerful characters
actually get arrogant and cocky?
  Seriously, you can use the "limited prize" option to promote strife in the 
party in any game system. Perhaps some alien or futuristic military outfits
determine their top commanders via combat, like the Clans in _MechWarrior_
the RPG version of the BATTLETECH game. It wasn't much more than a year ago, 
as I write these words, when the entire "Forum" section of one issue of
DRAGON Magazine was taken up by a discussion as to how to counter a PC in
the STAR WARS game whose possession of a suit of powered armor made him all
but invincible. The solution, of course, is to let another PC or NPC get his 
hands on a suit of equal power, then let them fight it out either as regular 
enemies, or as part of a rivalry for some prize like a commission in the
Rebel ranks. You don't even have to kill the too-powerful PC in this
instance, just wreck his nifty suit beyond repair, and do the same to that
of his rival to keep the nightmare from starting all over again. Think of
the neat little moral lessons you can provide to your players concerning
greed and the lust for power.
  Playing powerful characters off against each other is an excellent means
of evening the odds by destroying magic items and other too-powerful gear,
to say nothing of the possibility of killing off armies of supporters. And
if all else fails, send them to Kara-Tur or whatever your world's version of 
China is, and have them meet a particular trio of knights on less than
friendly terms . . .
  Any DM who enjoys hitting his players with moral decisions will find
plenty of material in this article alone, to say nothing of the reference
works in their entirety. If the local equivalent of the Mongols drive their
innocent captives before them in an assault, do you shoot at them? or hold
your fire and risk defeat? For that matter, if the Mongols pursue retreating 
troops so closely that keeping the castle gate open for them will let their
pursuers in as well (a common Mongol tactic), do you let your troops in
anyway? or slam the gates in their faces and watch them die?
  Suppose you are a successful military commander who has been granted
control of a newly-conquered land. Do you follow Machiavelli's advice and
systematically kill off everyone who might pose a threat to your rule? Or do 
you sit back and wait for the inevitable revolts to come, creating more
bloodshed later than would have come in the beginning? Once a campaign
becomes largely political, many players would welcome a revolt for the sake
of removing boredom, but a real-life ruler who liked bloodily suppressing
rebellions for the sake of entertainment would be seen as something of a
monster. Does the greater good for all the people you rule have greater
precedent over your alignment restrictions? You and your DM will have to
decide.
  In short, the best way to bring an unbal anced game back into line with
what you intended is to hit the players (and their characters) with the
tried-and-true methods used in the real world. Slam too-powerful characters
with a big dose of reality, and fantasy will never be the same again.