I don’t want to make this Vampire Day, but after reading the comments so far on today’s Ethics Quiz involving Florida Congressional candidate/ fantasy vampire role-play enthusiast Jake Rush, I realize that the original post omitted some important points and queries. Here, in no particular order, are my further thoughts:
- The Ick Factor? Both conservative and liberal commentators are ridiculing Rush, essentially concluding that his hobby disqualifies him as a serious candidate. The most quoted source referred to the images embraced by Rush’s role-playing group as “disturbing,” “bizarre,” and “unsettling.” Do these reactions signal a rejection of Rush’s values, or is this a clear-cut example of the “Ick Factor,” which is often mistaken for unethical conduct? Strange does not mean wrong or unethical.
- Trust. When we elect leaders, we must trust them. “Strange” by definition suggests unpredictability; if we don’t understand why people do what they do, it is hard for us to know how they will behave, and if we don’t know how they will behave, we can’t rationally trust them.
- Integrity. I should have raised the issue of integrity, for it is critical to the problem. Integrity is essential to trust, and a candidate like Rush raises the question: “Who, or what, is this guy?” Is he a “straight-shooting” conservative who likes to play vampire in his spare time, just like some politicians like to play poker or watch synchronized swimming (now that’s what I call weird), or is he a wannabe creature of the night who is just playing a conservative Republican in the daytime to conform to the expectations of conventional society? If there is doubt about that, then his integrity is in question.
- Transparency and Candor. Apparently Rush made a half-hearted effort to scrub the web of some of his fantasy activities, but has generally been open and candid, as well as unapologetic about them. Some commenters assert that he should have kept his hobby to himself, and that the public didn’t need to know. In the 2010 post about Rich Iott, the Nazi reenactor, I wrote,
“That Iott allowed himself to be backed by the Republican Party in a campaign against a non Nazi-admiring Democratic incumbent, without divulging this damning information before the party was committed to him, proves his lack of character, forthrightness, accountability and trustworthiness. And he’s an idiot.”
Does this apply to Rush as well? I find the argument that a candidate with such a vulnerable hobby should (never mind can) keep his fantasy life from the scrutiny of voters to be a breach of the duty of candor. Don’t tell me what I can take into consideration while picking my representative. I want to know if he plays vampire, Nazi, Hannibal Lector or Marie, Queen of Rumania.
- Values. No, the distinction between fantasy evil, real life evil, historical evil, and historical evil translated into fictional evil does not impress me when we are discussing the values, judgment and conduct of potential high officials. It’s OK to dress up as Hannibal Lector every night because he’s fictional, but not to dress up as Jack the Ripper every night because he wasn’t? Sorry: that’s a rationalization, role-players. Either both are harmless, or neither is. That’s why I brought up Rich Iott.
- The Secret Vampire Principle? Is there an equivalent of the Naked Teacher Principle here? I think so. Call it the Secret Vampire Principle. If you allow photographs and other evidence of you pretending to be a vampire or other creature or character identified with evil on the internet, you cannot protest when your candidacy for office suffers as a result.
- Role models. Central to the controversy is the fact that leaders are, indeed have to be, exemplars of productive, virtuous, societal nurturing values. A demonstrated affection for characters, real or fictional, who do not embody such values but rather stand for the opposite is problematical. I think it undermines one of the important duties of leadership.
_____________________________
Graphic: fromeapartytoday
Ethics Alarms 
You know, I was just about to type almost exactly that…. but you beat me to it….
That’s my fantasy role playing as a quick analyzing and even quicker presenting blogger…
In all honesty, flamboyance erodes my trust, because I link flamboyance to recklessness plus other possible (i.e., suspected) unsavory character traits. In short, I am more likely to trust a political leader who is reserved, humble, and in other respects, just plain boring relative to most other people. The exception I allow – indeed, expect – is for such a leader to be an impassioned, inspiring speaker and/or writer.
Perfect! Exactly what I was trying to say.
Granny, I reckon you and I have both been blessed to have had an upbringing by a whole heap of Ethics Heroes. In my case, I know I have let those heroes down many times, but I also (too often, in spite of myself) have avoided much of what they meant to teach me to avoid.
I think you’re right. It’s a blessing to have a good upbringing.
Yes. Also, so far, I have not found this candidate’s writing or speaking particularly inspiring.
I think the “Role Model” argument is the most robust made. Hopefully, there should be some dignity in Congress and this whack job forfeits any claim to it by allowing these pictures to be posted on the web.
All the more annoying that I left it out of the first post entirely….
Your integrity point is disgusting. “He dresses like a weirdo! I don’t know if he even realizes that he’s not really a vampire!” Bah.
Sheer snobbery, as presented in your comment on the previous post where you absolve actors of all of this because they get paid to be bad guys. News flash: Actors choose their career and accept their roles, making actors playing bad guys just as voluntary as reenactors playing bad guys.
This whole thing stinks of you being weirded out by an unusual hobby, being unable to explain why, and latching onto justifications (oh but actors are PROFESSIONALS) to keep from facing the fact that your gut instinct is to point and laugh and shun the weird kid.
Except there is a distinct difference between actors and make believe. Actors, even those typcast, play a plethora of roles and characters because they are out to ACT. These amateur role players almost exclusively ACTIVELY the SAME role. The actor’s behavior indicates their motivation is to ACT, not be a particular character. This guy? The nazi guy? Their behavior indicates their motivation is much more tied to the CHARACTER.
Independent of the motivation of “make believe” and its assumed harmlessness, you cannot divorce that from the possibility that they are motivate by the allure of what that make believe represents.
The flaw in this, Luke, is that intellectually I agree with you, for the most part. I think hobbies and private fantasies are generally irrelevant to how one does their job, but not completely irrelevant. It’s the ick factor in play.
But you keep making ridiculous arguments, like that one. Actors have no more allegiance to the characters they play than lawyers are responsible for the conduct and beliefs of their clients, or police are responsible for the laws they enforce. Those who voluntarily play characters for their own amusement are vary different, and some kind of affinity can be fairly presumed. Snobbery has nothing to do with it. I simple understand the difference between a job and recreation. I guess you don’t.
And your distinction between liking to play SS Officer and liking to play fantasy murderer is incoherent.
And by the way—I WAS a weird kid. Still am.
And another addendum—since many of the stories talk about Rush’s “double life,’ designating the mention of integrity as “disgusting” is pretty laughable. Integrity is obviously an issue any time “double life” is raised by the facts in play.
Jack, the title says “Futher…”
oops. What took you so long?
Busy at work. Most of my replies were quick shots from the iPhone on short breaks. I missed it on several readings… I think the letter arrangement of “Further” is conducive to missing the ‘r’…
That’s the best excuse I can come up with, other than just not being observant.
Yes, many of the stories call it a “double life” because it’s fun to point and laugh at the weird guy with his weird hobby. That doesn’t make it an actual thing.
They call it a double life because when you present the world with an image that is at apparent odds with your life, that’s what it looks like.
You sure seem to be taking this discussion personally.
Jack,
In follow-up to Beth’s and Luke’s comments, after reading and thinking more about this, I have begun to suspect that we commenters are simply reflecting a “generation gap,” culturally. It is very possible that your and my notions of ethics “due diligence” are not necessarily authoritative or timeless – not obsolete entirely, just maybe not sufficiently up-to-date. Therefore I can’t say with as much confidence as I had earlier today that I trust my personal threshold and response to the Ick Factor, such that I feel justified in dismissing out of hand any possibility of my voting for role-playing candidate Rush. I *probably* still would not vote for Rush, but I cannot say that I *definitely* would not vote for him as a direct result of knowing about his role-playing.
And to add to the generation thing (you articulated that better than I could, by the way), this is one of the few things we’ve seen reasonable agreement on between Beth and Scott.
Thanks; the “tip-off point” for me was exactly a result of seeing Beth, Luke and Scott aligning with each other. Although I really do not know them, it helps to have familiarity through their comments, enough to pause and consider introspectively, “Hey, I might be missing something, after all.”
It isn’t a “double life”. This isn’t some second family he has that lives in Duluth, it is a hobby. This is no different than him going and playing D&D or Cyberpunk 2000 or Call of Cthulhu, except he dresses in a costume and instead of rolling dice he uses rock/paper/scissor (or whatever), and he is competing against other players instead of something run by the guy running the game.
So unless you would qualify people who play D&D as folks who shouldn’t run for office, you’re being pretty unfair.
If Beth’s still reading this I think she’d agree: you don’t get it. Roleplayers may have a character they play for a long or short time, but you don’t have to have some special affinity for them. You play the character that works in the game world, plain and simple. When I play a fantasy racist because it creates interesting party tensions, does it mean I secretly have an affinity towards racists? No, it means that flawed or even evil characters are good for a story. No more did my turn as a Boy Scout-esque paladin mean that, in real life, I become paralyzed when following the rules means doing something distasteful- again, it’s an archetype that fuels the story.
And actors aren’t comparable to lawyers or police. A lawyer can’t say “I like enforcing the gun laws but not the pot laws.” A police officer can’t say “I’ll arrest you for burglary but not for assault.” An actor most certainly can say “I don’t want to play that character.” Sorry, I understand that you’re into theater, but an actor has final say over whether they’ll play a given character, hero or villain. They’re not noble souls pressed by an unfeeling machine into helplessly being the bad guy as they yearn for goodness. They are playing villains because you need villains for an interesting story, and they want to entertain people.
I now feel like hosting a RPG here in DC with Luke, AM, and Jack. My hubby can GM. I don’t know what characters we’ll play, but I worry that Jack’s character will be murdered by the rest of the party. Hey — it happens…..
On the plus side Jack, we can video it and post it on your blog. Heck, we could sell tickets!
Politics will not be discussed, but I promise to provide ample alcohol and yummy food. AM can pick the RPG. We prefer Cthulu or Traveler — but we can be flexible.
Actually, let’s play at Jack’s house — I’m not sure I want AM to know where I live. But I’ll still bring all the food and drink!
I have Google and Facebook. Can can find where you live fairly easily, if I care enough.
Spoiler: I don’t.
Somehow I feel there is a noticeable gulf between people whose first thought upon hearing “RPG” is “rocket propelled grenade” and those who think “role playing game” first.
We bring the chips and beer.
Yes, that’s what we bring when we play with those.
But what about when we play with Role Playing Games?
lhao 😉
You’re gonna have to fly me in if you want me in the game…
Jack can fly you and Luke in and expense it to his business. He obviously needs to do more research in this area anyway.
I am loving this idea…
Am I weird for only wanting to play Traveler so we can see who kills off the most characters during character generation?
Is Rollmaster an option?
Character generation is my favorite part of that game as well.
Sorry, but you don’t know what you are talking about. An actor who chooses roles according to his affinity with the values of the character is called either a nut, a fool, or an unemployed actor. Of course I get role playing; there’s nothing to get except that it is dubious conduct for an adult who wants to b e perceived as responsible, mature, and trustworthy.
And you (and Beth) are still ducking the Nazi question, which undercuts your absolute position.
The Nazi question is a red herring, so here, I’ll address it. Okay — if you want to have a Nazi party or create a Nazi club where everyone has to come dressed as Nazis, I’m going to assume that there is something very wrong with you. The only point of your party/club is to pretend to be Nazis or to honor Nazis.
LARPing is not a party, and it is not honoring a time gone by — it is street art. Somebody plays the villain (it might even be a Nazi), and the rest of the group plays various characters, including heroes and sidekicks to advance the story. It absolutely is theater — nothing less, nothing more. It is usually a classic story of good vs. evil, and the GM (i.e., director — like you) guides everyone through the play and calls the shots.
The fact that you are trying to distinguish theater on a stage from LARPing does suggest a bit of arrogance on your part. Indeed, MANY of the actors that you have worked with are LARPers or RPGers in their spare time. And they would all agree with me — both are acting and both are art. A Nazi club is not art — merely offensive.
But its not a Nazi club, Beth. It’s a “play like you’re a Nazi” club. Art, as they say, is in the eye of the beholder. Pornography is art. I raise Iott because he was a Congressional candidate, his Nazi recreations were a hobby, and revelation of his hobby pretty much killed his campaign. Isn’t your argument “my hobby is benign and art, your hobby is offensive and means something’s wrong with you?”
No — the LARPing hobby is storytelling. All good stories have a story of good v. evil. In one play you might be a hero and in the next you might be cast as the villain. Is that what the “play like you’re a Nazi club” is doing?
I don’t know. Wanna come with me and find out?
Hell, I’ll even say this – I played a character that was an old man (70’s or so) and a doctor at a concentration camp before he became a vampire. It was just part of the background, and was ever only mentioned or referenced twice (and that’s even stretching it).
He wasn’t “A Nazi”, he was a Sadist who realized the Nazi paid him well to cause suffering.
He was based off of the character played by Ian McKellen in the movie adaptation of “Apt Pupil”.
A friend played a character loosely based on the main character from American Psycho. Another played a character based on what is best described as super-demented version of the anime trope “Nightmare Fuel” (fucking malkavians).
They are characters. They are no more or less evident of someone’s deepest thoughts and feelings than the roles an actor chooses.
How do you distinguish a volunteer actor? Does every actor playing a villain in one of your unpaid G&S operettas secretly act as a villain in real life? Or, what about a paid method actor?
Ridiculous. But it’s not snobbery Luke, it’s ignorance. In any event, what I resent most about all of this is that I am placed in the position of defending a LARPer — and a Republican to boot. I think it is a stupid hobby, but not a suspicious or unethical one.
That’s just not reasonable comparison. If an actor in a show, professional or amateur, continues to act the part outside the show, because of affection for the role, that is cause for concern. Again—if Anthony Hopkins secretly dresses and acts like Hannibal Lector in his spare time, I think that suggests a malady or ten.
Ahhh — here’s your confusion. This guy doesn’t go dress up as a vampire in secret like a cross-dresser, he dresses up to go LARP with his friends in an organized community art form.
If it’s secret from voters and he’s running for public office, its still secret.
But it’s NOT secret. And even if it was, so what? Unless it’s being kept secret because it’s egregiously unethical, secrecy is irrelevant.
Gad, reading this comment thread is frustrating. I think we’re going to have to leave it at the fact that people who don’t do roleplaying games will never understand those who do.
I still say I’m a lot more comfortable with a seeming weirdo who has openly channeled what we may see as negative character traits into imaginative play than I am with politicians who seem like normal folks. Those seemingly normal, dignified leaders have an awful lot of *real* darkness hidden beneath their sober suits.
Huh? If it is being kept secret, that creates a rebuttable presumption that there IS something the matter with it. Otherwise, why keep it secret? Who knows why anyone does role playing or anything else? This “you don’t understand” stuff is classic evasion, like “you can discuss abortion because you never had a baby.” Games of all sorts fulfill various needs, and some games suggest darker needs than others, just as fetishes may be harmless or point to larger underlying issues. The fact that many leaders have hidden problems is a rotten argument for not trying to find out what they are before we make them leaders.
What I detect in the thread is a lot of defensiveness.
Less defensiveness and more generation gap, really; I’m speaking as someone who’s been hit in the face multiple times playing Humans versus Zombies (mostly as the latter).
Just noticed you brought up the generation gap, Julian.
Yeah, I noticed I was more sympathetic to Beth and Luke’s arguments even though I don’t do any roleplaying myself (and I somewhat disagreed with Jack even back during the Iott post), and I suspect I’m even younger than them (since I haven’t even graduated college yet).
There probably is a lot of defensiveness. I’ll admit to some on my part. I don’t agree with this guy’s choice of game or persona, and truth be told I’m not sure I’d vote for him, but as a longtime roleplaying geek/fantasy nerd/metalhead who grew up in a time and place that were unfriendly to some of the things I loved the most, I identify with him a little bit.
I’m seeing a giant gap between the two sides in this conversation. People are just talking right past each other. With abortion as an example, men really can’t understand some aspects of it, because we’re not women. Doesn’t mean we can’t make valid judgments, just that there’s a fundamental experience of the issue that we’re unable to share. We can discuss this all we want, but the debate is going nowhere because each side is operating on assumptions that are alien to the other.
As far as secrecy goes, it looks like Rush would have been better off keeping his hobby off the internet and staying deep in the closet (probably beats the political spotlight as a vampire-friendly environment, anyway).
“We can discuss this all we want, but the debate is going nowhere because each side is operating on assumptions that are alien to the other.”
Then hash out those assumptions for discussion. This isn’t an agree to disagree thing. I don’t see people talking past each other at all. I’ve seen a ton of quibbling about “what about a person in this situation acting THIS way?”. “oh yeah, well how about a non-professional actor behaving the same way??!” in a desperate attempt to find an inconsistency, as though the person’s position in life is what determines if the rule applies.
It doesn’t, because it isn’t a “what’s the person doing” question, it is a “how’s the person doing it” and “does that indicate why the person is doing it” question. Because, even a professional actor eagerly and exclusively pursuing the role of, let’s say, a child molester, doesn’t get to pass on being scrutinized with a little interventionist “hey, Bob, is everything ok? You seem really obsessed about this…”
May turn out they have legitimate and harmless reasons for the obsession… maybe not.
However, ratchet the rule up for someone who seeks power over us. Sorry, there’s a quicker cut off for assuming the worst out of suspicion of the answer to the “how” and the “why” question.
Its simple.
Jack,
My autocorrect changed “if the rule applies” to “if the rallies” in my 1st paragraph, could you fix it please? Thanks!
Sure.
texagg04, I thought about this some more and came to a similar conclusion — the simple fact that the guy has a fantasy roleplaying hobby matters less than HOW he does it.
I was stuck on the what and hadn’t considered the how. I guess that’s one assumption we can hash out. Heck, I’ve been defending the guy, but I still have nagging questions about whether this penchant for playing predatory sadists means something or not. I get the same “ick” factor from shows like Dexter and Law and Order: SVU, which not only explore the motives and behavior of criminally diseased people, but dwell almost lovingly on the cruel details of their crimes. Does the “how” of their show say anything about who the writers and producers and actors are as people? Probably not.
I dunno about ratcheting up the cutoff for assuming the worst about someone who aspires to leadership. I can’t think of a single politician who ticks the “weirdo” box; they’re all great at projecting normality. Collectively, we’re terrible at judging who aspires to ethical leadership versus who is secretly corrupt or power-hungry. Turning up the intensity of a faulty process won’t improve the result.
We recently got a letter from our local Historical Society.
Offering us the chance to participate in some historical reenactment.
They need extras.
We said no because of the extreme ick factor of wearing wool or deer hide in Florida. In August.
Just typing those words made me sick.
Roleplayers are unpaid improv actors. It is ALL about the story and the tall tales of good or bad productions. If actors can be respected after a bedtime for bonzo, why not? Like a stage production, someone has to play the villains, whether they are named Hannibal or LeStat. And some people are better at playing villains without being a villain, like Vincent Price. We saw pictures of the candidate as the Flash, and no one is worried he might vibrate through a wall because he goes overboard as a super hero. It’s a game. Like writing, roleplayers have to take a nod at credible and get nailed if they try to break the rules. It’s just fun, even if others get icked.
DM in college thirty years ago and I don’t think it should disqualify someone of otherwise public spirit to take public office. Considering all the politician dreck covered around here, maybe we could use some office holders who get weird stuff out of their system off duty.
You realize this got 5000 likes and 2500+ comments that are running 30-1 in the guy’s favor? Everybody’s jumped on the bandwagon that says that a little roleplaying is no big deal considering most legislators’ hobbies involve extramarital sex, drugs, or both.
Uh-huh. You wanna make a bet on how many people vote for him in the primary? The online response doesn’t surprise me at all. and their reasoning, of course, is another rationalization.
Last I checked, the EA poll is running about 3-2 against. I was betting on 50-50.
So, am I disqualified from public office because I chose the “massacre the town” option in the Total War games? Or because I sometimes play as the bad guys in online multiplayer?
Absolutely not! Everyone knows if you don’t massacre the inhabitants of Judea, they’ll revolt on you every 5th year.
No matter how easy a tax burden you give them….
My characters in the last couple of Fallout games would likewise DQ me from public office…
As an avid RPG player (not LARP though) I have no objection to someone gaming as their primary hobby. That being said, I don’t think I’d vote for someone who chooses to deliberately role play as a villian. I didn’t have qualms about Jake Rush until you included a bit of his writing, which is terrible in terms of both coherence and the mindset.
In V:TM terms, someone who plays a character whose humanity drops to 1 by the first session is probably someone I don’t want to associate with in real life, Choosing to play in a game where everyone is a vampire is one thing, but embracing the monstrous nature is another. Trying to be as ethical as possible while still surviving in a monstrous setting or even as one of the monsters is more my style.
That’s just it – the villain is never the villain in his own story.
And that is why they are so much fun to play.
I gather you read Heinlein?
You have to ask? 🙂
Not really, no.;)
So can we say yet (finally!) that it’s perfectly OK if Christine O’Donnell is a witch?
Only if she’s pretending to be one, of course.
Or is it OK ONLY if she is a liberal, progressive, socialistic, Democrat Party witch?
Oh, nooOOOOOO, I am NOT thinking about 45th President Hillary. I would NEVER do THAT!
That’s OK, but it’s even more OK if a male liberal, progressive, socialistic Democratic Party witch prefers to wear a woman’s worship gown and be addressed as Mother Shabubu.
I am laughing too hard to continue…
The only thing witch-like about Ms. O’Donnell is that she dated a self-professed Wicken while young. If she embraced Wicken herself, then she would be an out-and-out witch, but NOT as we think of witches today…broom, pointy hat and warts.
Now, as to the actual article…as an ex-member of the Society for Creative Anachronism, I can tell you that this kind of…call it role-playing is fun for a weekend camping trip (we called them “events”). Unfortunately, I also eventually realized that this kind of behavior is remarkably immature. It is also VASTLY different from running or playing a D&D game, whatever you call it. I also suspect that this kind of weekend playing is symptomatic of a marked dissatisfaction with your life as currently structured…it certainly was in my case.
To answer the question “Would I vote for the guy?”, not just No but Hell, No!! I prefer that the people who are running the governments to which I submit (County, state, federal) be adults who are doing what they want to be doing. I suspect it would be a lot easier to trust their decision-making processes if that were the case.
I just think it’s fair to expect that people can engage in an even wider variety of unharmful diversions than I might initially judge “acceptable.” That is what I am thinking of the “RPG” and “LARP-ing” insofar as I have read about them only today; frankly, it has been all new to me (though I knew of D&D decades ago, but have never played). While I do think your suspicion “that this kind of weekend playing is symptomatic of a marked dissatisfaction with your life as currently structured” is not entirely unfair, I am willing to accept that I might be suspicious as a result of unfamiliarity and nothing else. I definitely would not consider running for political office, if I was a role-player like candidate Rush. But that is just me.
And I would agree with you. However, I wouldn’t run for political office in any case…just too honest, I guess.
Look, LARPing is, when you cut away everything else, an excuse to try and get women who like wearing corsets to sleep with you.
And I defy any LARPer to tell me I’m lying.
*crickets…*
At least they aren’t the “furries”
Same reason a lot of guys don’t object going to Ren Faires.
But then, the appropriate term is “bodice”
You spelled ” magical cleavage generator” wrong…
And now, thanks to Jack’s webpage graphics, I am speculating obsessively about what might be Putin’s covert jollies.
…and, am obsessively AVOIDING speculating about the Blameless One’s preferred covert jollies – besides, Michelle no doubt knows (and probably even joins in on at least some of them), and she would snap him in half like a dry twig if anything about those became public.
Or, are the racketeer media protecting the BO and wife, like they did JFK??
You mean Cleavage Land? I love that place…
If nothing else, this post will be among my favorites for the way it brought you and Beth together.
Don’t get too excited dad — it would never work out!