I was definitely confused by this article at first, thinking it was some silly guide for law enforcement which can't tell the difference between criminals and LARPers...??
But no -- it's actually about terrorists and criminals trying to claim in court that their criminal planning wasn't that at all, but just LARPing:
> For example, after Kaleb Franks was arrested in October 2020 for plotting to abduct Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer, he told the FBI he and his compatriots were only LARPing. Franks later pled guilty and testified that this was a lie.
So this document is for investigators to ensure they have a specific framework for being able to collect the appropriate evidence to use in court that prevents a defendent from using a LARPing defense.
Which actually makes a tremendous amount of sense. When armed militia members claim all of their organizing/preparation is just recreational, and totally unlinked to violence that members do eventually commit, it's important to have delineated standards to be able to refute that.
It isn't just courts, these are for police officers in general, they say it near the top "which may be helpful to both law enforcement and prosecutors if suspects of targeted violence claim they were playacting".
These standards will likely make officers go after more genuine LARPers than before. These tips are very problematic if police officers start to follow them, for example:
> Role players will not discuss law enforcement concerns on social media or provide guidance to each other if confronted by an officer. Also, they will have no demonstrated interest in criminal cases involving claims of LARP.
If police officers are going after LARPers then LARPers will start to talk about what to do in those cases.
> The foremost distinction between LARPers and violent extremists is that genuine role players will not care whether others are watching. They may even embrace third-party observation, such as nonplayer characters or a general audience. After all, LARP is a performance.
Lots of people are embarrassed to do things in public, a police officer coming across some people LARPing in private shouldn't be cause for investigation.
> These standards will likely make officers go after more genuine LARPers than before. These tips are very problematic if police officers start to follow them.
It sounds like it might be a dangerous time to LARP about and plan terrorist acts. That could be very problematic for those who enjoy that as a recreational hobby. But in some ways there's a precedent for it with flying. Lots of people used to love to LARP about taking a bomb on a plane and that recreational activity has been significantly curtailed. Maybe we're heading for a world where it's no longer safe to plan the kidnapping of state or national government officials and then practice the steps necessary to carry it out, and where we can no longer joke about a bomb look-alike device that we want to take on airplanes.
I agree with the top post that the title confused me. But reading the article I came away with a very different take than you. This person is trying to define the difference between LARPing and being terrorist. That may be obvious to someone who knows LARPers, but not everyone does.
I really don't think that the police are going to be a problem for people in fantasy gear, cosplaying, or re-enacting a historical battle. I have never heard of it. But LARPing shouldn't be an excuse for people who want to don real tactical gear and weapons and plan mayhem.
This isn't "seek out LARPers". This is "how do I distinguish a group of people in the woods running around in camo as LARPers or violent extremists". They found the people first.
You're looking at this from an assumption-of-LARPing.
Imagine an FBI agent looking at evidence of Timothy McVeigh at a gun show in 1994. He's selling a flare gun he claims can 'shoot down an ATF helicopter' and ATF hats with bullet holes in them.
When interviewed without charge, imagine McVeigh claims that it's part of his LARPing activities.
What standards would you suggest that agent applies, in order to avoid a false negative?
To add a counterpoint, that specific example is really a poor choice to get the point across. It’s been established (https://www.insider.com/kidnapping-conspiracy-whitmer-fbi-in...) that the Whitmer plot was run by the FBI itself, in a way having agents LARPing as terrorists.
Also, I would hope the real LARPing community can feel safe enough to share tips on what to do if they run into police while running around the woods with foam swords.
Nothing has been "established" except that a number of those involved got convicted. It's silly to think the FBI can force people to commit crimes they had no desire to commit.
Just like terrorism, if the person saying "Let's kidnap a government official" is an FBI agent but you didn't know, you still decided to conspire with that idea. The reason the bar for entrapment is so high is that the societal expectation is that you WON'T DO A BAD THING, even if 30 CIA agents all offer to sleep with you or give you a billion dollars or prepare everything for you and you just have to sign a sheet of paper.
You probably shouldn't conspire to kidnap someone, regardless of who came up with the idea first. You are expected to just not engage with the guy suggesting it.
Friendly reminder that the three-letter agencies are very well embedded in every single "subversive" organizing community in the U.S., be it "left" or "right-wing."
The blatant lying that law enforcement has to deal with on a daily basis is uderappreciated.
The US has a legal system that permits a defendant to say many things, like "My buddies and I were participating in a fantasy scenario where we plotted in detail and collected supplies to kidnap the governor of our state... but it was just a game. Like those other people who play games!"
Good for the authors in making an effort to clearly distinguish between protected speech and non-protected conspiracy to commit a crime.
> The US has a legal system that permits a defendant to say many things, like "My buddies and I were participating in a fantasy scenario where we plotted in detail and collected supplies to kidnap the governor of our state... but it was just a game. Like those other people who play games!"
Which is why our founders had the good sense to bake jury trials right into the constitution. The focus on law enforcement, who in this particular case, were themselves involved in the "LARPing" to large extent, is bizarre.
The purpose of the criminal justice system isn't to punish every single unruly act. It's to match punishments with the actual crimes committed. It's bizarre to see Hacker News blindly cheering on this document, although, understandably it's because most people probably don't personally like those defendants.
So.. of course it becomes the focus of the top comment.
In that context, the table they describe is a disaster.
If a group of actual LARPers doesn't want spectators, isn't part of a larger LARPing community, doesn't have rules/character sheets, is concerned about law enforcement (!) then they look like terrorists, based on this guidance.
The problem is that they've commingled a handful of objective facts with a handful of mental states and motives that are only known to the individuals.
The only reliable factor is if they are using live weapons and ammunition. Sadly, law enforcement is likely incapable of using that single, obvious factor to judge the legality of what is otherwise creative expression, and therefore leans into the pseudo-forensics provided here.
And there I was, assuming someone else sees all those militia types and tacticools as LARPing out their war heroism and combat fantasies as adults, only with real weapons instead of wooden ones.
That being said, my wooden "E-11 replica" is still around at my uncles place, 30 odd years later.
> When armed militia members claim all of their organizing/preparation is just recreational, and totally unlinked to violence that members do eventually commit, it's important to have delineated standards to be able to refute that.
I think the delineation between the members to that eventually commit violence and the ones who can successfully use the "LARPing" defense is whether or not they committed any crimes. It's pretty simple to me. This sounds, to me, a lot more like a guide on how to convict people who committed no crimes associated with the criminals who did.
Most of us here probably think of LARPing as fantasy-genre LARPing, but I think this is more pointed toward Mil-Sim LARPing.
These are hardcore airsoft guys who go buy comms, night-vision, IR, with airsoft weapons that function like real weapons. There are multi-day events with NATO vs RUS forces. Look up "milsim west" on Youtube and you can get a sense of it.
There's a good amount of folks that just like to have fun, but there is a subset that use it as a type of militia-esque training.
Yeah, I participated in some events in germany and here it is probably especially in a grey zone, because normally in germany everything militia like is strictly forbidden. Paintball is not allowed with camouflage or red paint. And then you can legally go to an event on a former military hangar with bunkers and then there is an actual tank and only people in camouflage and realistic looking weapons..
So if you would want to create a stealth militia in germany, this would probably be the way to go.
And in the events I participated, I knew the orga and I knew they were clearly into LARPing - but with some of the other people who attended, I was not so sure.
So I really hope it stays legal as it is a lot of fun, but I also hope it does not go out of hand, as increasingly with covid, there has been some radicalisation in certain groups ...
edit: to share an anecdote of why it is interesting to me, aside from the shooting:
There was a big event last year, with an apocalyptic setting. Killervirus and Zombies, Military and Civilians.
I happened to be on the military side, which was (by design) better organised and equipped. And during the game, it turned out, that our side was the evil side, who originally released the zombie virus. But what to do? Everyone else was potentially an enemy, who maybe wanted to shoot you and the people around you, your trusted comrades. So you stick with them for survival. As I have never been to the military, this was an interesting inside into how conflict and war crimes works and why people stay in line, despite they distance themself from what they are representing.
The crazy/normal ratio among milsim larpers is EXTREMLY high. Just listen to the language they use in YT videos to describe other participants and general public
There is this odd thing about the human brain that as soon as it is in a group and have tools of violence at hand it will often start planing to take over the society
Luckily individual soldiers without heavy equipment (at least some artillery) are more or less useless in a proper military showdown. Has been the case at least since WW2.
ISIS was a good example, they were being quickly defeated by pretty much everyone involved in the Syrian conflict.
"Role players will not discuss law enforcement concerns on social media or provide guidance to each other if confronted by an officer. Also, they will have no demonstrated interest in criminal cases involving claims of LARP."
Your resistance proves your guilt. Insisting on your fourth and fifth amendment rights? Noting other cases where innocent hobbyists were threatened and trying to avoid the same? Seems like violent extremism.
I didn't interpret it that way at all. I interpreted it as having familiarity with cases of actual terrorists using a defense of claimed LARPing suggests you researched this to make up a cover story.
> Insisting on your fourth and fifth amendment rights?
This is a good point. When I am in character as a LARP law enthusiast that’s LARPing as a violent extremist, my in-character explanation of why I am not criminally liable for my OC’s OC’s behavior to police are a violation of my rights.
Your rights do not depend on you being "in character" or not. The only state of mind that affects your rights is insanity. Insert the meme about "finding out".
They used the term LARP a lot more literally than I expected.
Although the history of LARP as a legal defense is narrow, the authors share the concern that it may soon become commonplace. Early attempts at such a strategy have been made by a defendant acting alone or in loose cooperation with members of a fantasy group who knew each other only in the virtual world, claiming “artistic expression” to excuse threatening language.
I can see this being a big problem with memes in the immediate future. Does the FBI have a page where they attempt to distinguish edgy memes from genuine calls to violence? This is a relatively benign example, but there are TikToks where users pretend to have fantasies about taking officer's service weapon. Sure they're all jokes, but modern internet humor is deeply ironic; I'd imagine there are plenty of genuinely violent people making seemingly ironic memes. I'd also imagine that there are nonviolent memers disseminating genuine violent ideas and vice versa.
Well fuck the feds for snooping on all our conversations honestly. When we don't have privacy, people collectively engaging in edgy irony to the point you can't distinguish the signal from the noise provides people with a level of free speech.
"Posts on a public site...Complains about privacy"
What the hell you are going on about man. If you post something like "Hey, lets shoot some cops", or hell "lets start shooting ____" online you are giving up your right to privacy. Yes, the US legal system has means of taking the 'evidence' you posted online in front of a judge and getting a warrant. Via the warrant system nearly complete dismantling of your privacy can be compelled.
Well the feds in this case is around 30 other countries doing the spying for them and then sharing the information so as to avoid domestic laws in their own country. France, Germany, Britain, New Zealand, Canada, Japan, and obviously the U.S. are the current biggest players
It's only fair that the people do not comply, seeing as we know none of these countries have a problem with violating rights whenever they desire.
Because social media has taught people - especially young people - that views/clicks/likes/etc are equivalent to popularity and acceptance, so they need to do outrageous things to get the views.
If I had to guess I would saynpart of the intrusive-thoughts/OCD/impulse-control community. I've seen similar about swerving into oncoming traffic or walking off a ledge.
They don't have a page because they don't make the distinction. And, generally, once they're called in, have the idea of securing a conviction at any cost.
cf mens rea; in the financial context Matt Levine's "Money Stuff" column often points out that if people are doing something dodgy the worst thing (for any future defence) they can do is try to weasel-word it.
Although the history of LARP as a legal defense is narrow, the authors share the concern that it may soon become commonplace.
This is a reasonable concern.
I will note anecdotally not all role players are playing with a full deck -- though I am more familiar with role playing gamers, not LARPers (granted: not entirely separate groups). Some are mildly cracked, sometimes harmlessly -- the guy who exclusively played female characters and might have identified as trans had he been born later -- and some not so harmlessly -- the gal who forged her own sword which she took with her everywhere, even the mall, by concealing it under a cape, and genuinely believed she was the last special warrior of some sort from a fictional series.* She believed she was female to signify she was the last.
So that may complicate sorting out who is just playing games from who is a genuine threat of planned violence.
I thought there was a “has difficulty differentiating LARP persona from real identity” criteria on the list. Seems like that should come into play in the situation you described.
On a psychological level, LARPers temporarily enter a fictional world with characters who reside within it and are separate from day-to-day reality; there is no discomfort in distinguishing between the two.
It implies the opposite -- that violent extremists may have trouble distinguishing -- but doesn't seem to say it outright.
Some key context, provided if you read the article, is that this exists to outline the difference between LARPing and Violent Extremism, especially as some violent extremists have claimed that their plans of violence were only "LARPing" and not bona-fide terrorism.
The exact differences they point out, such as "spectators being welcome" vs "secrecy is paramount" are clear, universal, well thought out, and interesting to read about and consider.
It's not like there isn't a robust history of law enforcement "spectators" trying to railroad participants based on absolutely nothing, including in literal role playing scenarios. Privacy rights exist for a reason.
The article had many good points. But many claims about LARP were not universal or not clear. Some performances are private. Some LARP is solo. The article acknowledged small groups but the table did not. People in many hobbies discuss law enforcement concerns, guidance to each other if confronted by an officer, and criminal cases where the hobby is mentioned. Role players have confirmation bias like other people. Some theatrical presentations have real antagonists.
I did not read the article as being that black and white, rather as a set of rules of thumb. Such as if enough boxes are ticked the investigator should maybe consider that it is not a real LARPer, but rather someone who tries to hide behind a veil of LARPing.
> To prepare for a violent attack, terrorists possess and practice real weapons and live ammunition. LARPers would have no need for such destructive instruments when preparing for their event.
Nobody loves guns more than LARPers. I know more people into pyrotechnics that play wizards in larps than pretty much any other category of weirdo, and I know a lot of weirdos. It's a power fantasy, but it's one that they love to live out in a small way, and range-shooting is one of the most common expressions of it.
Honestly, based on my life experience, I disagree with quite some criteria that the FBI uses here to distinguish between LARP and Violent Extremism:
Audience: "Spectators accepted or desired" vs "Secrecy demanded"
Quite some LARP people who want to avoid spectators, since quite some conservative or religious people tend to associate some fantasy stuff to be "satanistic" or "sacrilegious". Thus, to avoid really annoying discussions, they prefer no spectators.
Components: "Features of organized gaming (e.g., rules, character sheets, scenario scripts, in- and out-of-character designations)" vs "Absence of documented rules, character sheets, scenario scripts, in- and out-of-character designations; all “characters” are frontline fighters or operational support personnel"
There exist LARP system where there exist many rules, but also those where such things are handled in a more "loose"/"spontanous"/"improvisatory" way.
Relationship with law enforcement: "No concern with law enforcement in out-of-character life" vs "Demonstrated concern with law enforcement and prosecutions of similar criminal behavior"
Of course, those who distrust the law enforcement (often for good reasons) are suspicious to be extremists - that is what the FBI claims ;-) . Seriously: there likely exist LARP players with about any possible stance concerning law enforcement.
Equipment: "realistic prop weapons often discouraged in the rules"
It depends on the LARP system whether these are discouraged or encouraged.
Personal grievance: "No personal grievance toward out-group(s) outside the voluntary, fantasy world" vs "Personal grievance toward out-group(s) believed to pose an imminent and existential threat, requiring violent action" and Mood: "Euthymic and joyful; anticipatory fantasy to enjoy the event" vs "Dysphoric and angry; anticipatory fantasy to harm or kill the target(s)"
This depends a lot on the setting of the LARP: of course some cyberpunk, horror or dark-fantasy themed LARP will be much more dark than, say, some high fantasy or utopic science-fiction setting.
Readit News
But no -- it's actually about terrorists and criminals trying to claim in court that their criminal planning wasn't that at all, but just LARPing:
> For example, after Kaleb Franks was arrested in October 2020 for plotting to abduct Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer, he told the FBI he and his compatriots were only LARPing. Franks later pled guilty and testified that this was a lie.
So this document is for investigators to ensure they have a specific framework for being able to collect the appropriate evidence to use in court that prevents a defendent from using a LARPing defense.
Which actually makes a tremendous amount of sense. When armed militia members claim all of their organizing/preparation is just recreational, and totally unlinked to violence that members do eventually commit, it's important to have delineated standards to be able to refute that.
These standards will likely make officers go after more genuine LARPers than before. These tips are very problematic if police officers start to follow them, for example:
> Role players will not discuss law enforcement concerns on social media or provide guidance to each other if confronted by an officer. Also, they will have no demonstrated interest in criminal cases involving claims of LARP.
If police officers are going after LARPers then LARPers will start to talk about what to do in those cases.
> The foremost distinction between LARPers and violent extremists is that genuine role players will not care whether others are watching. They may even embrace third-party observation, such as nonplayer characters or a general audience. After all, LARP is a performance.
Lots of people are embarrassed to do things in public, a police officer coming across some people LARPing in private shouldn't be cause for investigation.
It sounds like it might be a dangerous time to LARP about and plan terrorist acts. That could be very problematic for those who enjoy that as a recreational hobby. But in some ways there's a precedent for it with flying. Lots of people used to love to LARP about taking a bomb on a plane and that recreational activity has been significantly curtailed. Maybe we're heading for a world where it's no longer safe to plan the kidnapping of state or national government officials and then practice the steps necessary to carry it out, and where we can no longer joke about a bomb look-alike device that we want to take on airplanes.
I really don't think that the police are going to be a problem for people in fantasy gear, cosplaying, or re-enacting a historical battle. I have never heard of it. But LARPing shouldn't be an excuse for people who want to don real tactical gear and weapons and plan mayhem.
But if you're playing pretend with real weapons, you deserve scrutiny, regardless of your ideology.
Imagine an FBI agent looking at evidence of Timothy McVeigh at a gun show in 1994. He's selling a flare gun he claims can 'shoot down an ATF helicopter' and ATF hats with bullet holes in them.
When interviewed without charge, imagine McVeigh claims that it's part of his LARPing activities.
What standards would you suggest that agent applies, in order to avoid a false negative?
Deleted Comment
Also, I would hope the real LARPing community can feel safe enough to share tips on what to do if they run into police while running around the woods with foam swords.
You probably shouldn't conspire to kidnap someone, regardless of who came up with the idea first. You are expected to just not engage with the guy suggesting it.
They’ve already been convicted, they’re in jail and will be for a few more years.
You lost, get over it.
Dead Comment
"Did you hear what Jim has planned?"
-"Oh he's just LARPing"
The US has a legal system that permits a defendant to say many things, like "My buddies and I were participating in a fantasy scenario where we plotted in detail and collected supplies to kidnap the governor of our state... but it was just a game. Like those other people who play games!"
Good for the authors in making an effort to clearly distinguish between protected speech and non-protected conspiracy to commit a crime.
You can even get acquitted for it because it turned out that the FBI was the dungeon master all along: https://chicago.suntimes.com/columnists/2022/4/13/23023950/m...
The purpose of the criminal justice system isn't to punish every single unruly act. It's to match punishments with the actual crimes committed. It's bizarre to see Hacker News blindly cheering on this document, although, understandably it's because most people probably don't personally like those defendants.
So.. of course it becomes the focus of the top comment.
I'm not opining whether that's a good rule or not, just wanted to be clear that this is also a rule within the US legal system.
The US has a legal system that permits a police office to say anything, but a citizen must not lie to a police officer.
The Miranda warning is not a good sign - it reminds the citizen that the government can and will use anything a citizen says for its own purposes.
If a group of actual LARPers doesn't want spectators, isn't part of a larger LARPing community, doesn't have rules/character sheets, is concerned about law enforcement (!) then they look like terrorists, based on this guidance.
The problem is that they've commingled a handful of objective facts with a handful of mental states and motives that are only known to the individuals.
The only reliable factor is if they are using live weapons and ammunition. Sadly, law enforcement is likely incapable of using that single, obvious factor to judge the legality of what is otherwise creative expression, and therefore leans into the pseudo-forensics provided here.
That being said, my wooden "E-11 replica" is still around at my uncles place, 30 odd years later.
I think the delineation between the members to that eventually commit violence and the ones who can successfully use the "LARPing" defense is whether or not they committed any crimes. It's pretty simple to me. This sounds, to me, a lot more like a guide on how to convict people who committed no crimes associated with the criminals who did.
These are hardcore airsoft guys who go buy comms, night-vision, IR, with airsoft weapons that function like real weapons. There are multi-day events with NATO vs RUS forces. Look up "milsim west" on Youtube and you can get a sense of it.
There's a good amount of folks that just like to have fun, but there is a subset that use it as a type of militia-esque training.
So if you would want to create a stealth militia in germany, this would probably be the way to go.
And in the events I participated, I knew the orga and I knew they were clearly into LARPing - but with some of the other people who attended, I was not so sure.
So I really hope it stays legal as it is a lot of fun, but I also hope it does not go out of hand, as increasingly with covid, there has been some radicalisation in certain groups ...
edit: to share an anecdote of why it is interesting to me, aside from the shooting:
There was a big event last year, with an apocalyptic setting. Killervirus and Zombies, Military and Civilians. I happened to be on the military side, which was (by design) better organised and equipped. And during the game, it turned out, that our side was the evil side, who originally released the zombie virus. But what to do? Everyone else was potentially an enemy, who maybe wanted to shoot you and the people around you, your trusted comrades. So you stick with them for survival. As I have never been to the military, this was an interesting inside into how conflict and war crimes works and why people stay in line, despite they distance themself from what they are representing.
Their Facebook group: https://m.facebook.com/profile.php/?id=100075824776496
There’sa few articles with pictures floating around. This one’s from Vice: https://www.vice.com/en/article/g5vpbx/poland-larp-america-o...
There is this odd thing about the human brain that as soon as it is in a group and have tools of violence at hand it will often start planing to take over the society
ISIS was a good example, they were being quickly defeated by pretty much everyone involved in the Syrian conflict.
Your resistance proves your guilt. Insisting on your fourth and fifth amendment rights? Noting other cases where innocent hobbyists were threatened and trying to avoid the same? Seems like violent extremism.
This is a good point. When I am in character as a LARP law enthusiast that’s LARPing as a violent extremist, my in-character explanation of why I am not criminally liable for my OC’s OC’s behavior to police are a violation of my rights.
What the hell you are going on about man. If you post something like "Hey, lets shoot some cops", or hell "lets start shooting ____" online you are giving up your right to privacy. Yes, the US legal system has means of taking the 'evidence' you posted online in front of a judge and getting a warrant. Via the warrant system nearly complete dismantling of your privacy can be compelled.
Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.
It's only fair that the people do not comply, seeing as we know none of these countries have a problem with violating rights whenever they desire.
Why is this a trend...
Remember Tide pods? Same thing.
Dead Comment
Edit: eg https://kotaku.com/minecraft-death-threat-4chan-pol-shooter-...
This is a reasonable concern.
I will note anecdotally not all role players are playing with a full deck -- though I am more familiar with role playing gamers, not LARPers (granted: not entirely separate groups). Some are mildly cracked, sometimes harmlessly -- the guy who exclusively played female characters and might have identified as trans had he been born later -- and some not so harmlessly -- the gal who forged her own sword which she took with her everywhere, even the mall, by concealing it under a cape, and genuinely believed she was the last special warrior of some sort from a fictional series.* She believed she was female to signify she was the last.
So that may complicate sorting out who is just playing games from who is a genuine threat of planned violence.
* https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elric_of_Melnibon%C3%A9
On a psychological level, LARPers temporarily enter a fictional world with characters who reside within it and are separate from day-to-day reality; there is no discomfort in distinguishing between the two.
It implies the opposite -- that violent extremists may have trouble distinguishing -- but doesn't seem to say it outright.
The exact differences they point out, such as "spectators being welcome" vs "secrecy is paramount" are clear, universal, well thought out, and interesting to read about and consider.
http://www.sjgames.com/SS/
Deleted Comment
> To prepare for a violent attack, terrorists possess and practice real weapons and live ammunition. LARPers would have no need for such destructive instruments when preparing for their event.
Nobody loves guns more than LARPers. I know more people into pyrotechnics that play wizards in larps than pretty much any other category of weirdo, and I know a lot of weirdos. It's a power fantasy, but it's one that they love to live out in a small way, and range-shooting is one of the most common expressions of it.
Audience: "Spectators accepted or desired" vs "Secrecy demanded"
Quite some LARP people who want to avoid spectators, since quite some conservative or religious people tend to associate some fantasy stuff to be "satanistic" or "sacrilegious". Thus, to avoid really annoying discussions, they prefer no spectators.
Components: "Features of organized gaming (e.g., rules, character sheets, scenario scripts, in- and out-of-character designations)" vs "Absence of documented rules, character sheets, scenario scripts, in- and out-of-character designations; all “characters” are frontline fighters or operational support personnel"
There exist LARP system where there exist many rules, but also those where such things are handled in a more "loose"/"spontanous"/"improvisatory" way.
Relationship with law enforcement: "No concern with law enforcement in out-of-character life" vs "Demonstrated concern with law enforcement and prosecutions of similar criminal behavior"
Of course, those who distrust the law enforcement (often for good reasons) are suspicious to be extremists - that is what the FBI claims ;-) . Seriously: there likely exist LARP players with about any possible stance concerning law enforcement.
Equipment: "realistic prop weapons often discouraged in the rules"
It depends on the LARP system whether these are discouraged or encouraged.
Personal grievance: "No personal grievance toward out-group(s) outside the voluntary, fantasy world" vs "Personal grievance toward out-group(s) believed to pose an imminent and existential threat, requiring violent action" and Mood: "Euthymic and joyful; anticipatory fantasy to enjoy the event" vs "Dysphoric and angry; anticipatory fantasy to harm or kill the target(s)"
This depends a lot on the setting of the LARP: of course some cyberpunk, horror or dark-fantasy themed LARP will be much more dark than, say, some high fantasy or utopic science-fiction setting.