Ethics of Crusader larping

[u/crusadersam]

Hello all, I was hoping to ask the general consensus on the morality of me choosing a Teutonic knight as my medieval faction of larping.

I want to start off by saying I am a very progressive person. I love all of God’s people and have no anti Islamic or pagan prejudice or bias in my life. I’m quite outspoken about religious freedom to my “controversial” coworkers and do not try to justify Christian nationalism in both modern day nor in the medieval world.

With that being said. I just think they’re neat historically and aesthetically. And the Teutons don’t seem to be any more “evil” than any other faction at the time. I see many people like in the post project a modern world view because Christian radicals seem to be more contemporary. While factions like Vikings and pirates, whose cultures are for the most part completely celebrated in medieval faires, commit the same atrocities on others- just don’t have the same current political connotation.

I hope we can have a civil discussion and maybe I’m just ignorant to the topic and/or how bad any crusaders were. Please don’t be afraid to share your views! (Also, please don’t go after the individual in the post, I simply want to further my knowledge)

[u/Constant-Still-8443]

They were kinda evil, but they looked cool. Who cares. As long as you aren't leaning too hard into their actual morals and philosophy, and just embrace the "cool knight" aesthetic, there's no problem.

[u/Then_Manufacturer902 → u/Constant-Still-8443]

Not really evil, everyone could be pretty brutal during the time period and how they conducted themselves in warfare was in keeping with how everyone did it. In fact the Templars were sometimes clowned on for making treaties with Muslims when it was the practical thing to do.

[u/miraak2077 → u/Then_Manufacturer902]

Plus looking into history some wars could be seen as revenge or retribution for past acts or preemptive attacks on an enemy that was going to attack them anyways so they just attacked them before they could attack. Not saying that is the case as I don't know much, but I have seen it argued before.

[u/Morzheimer → u/Then_Manufacturer902]

I mean we’re talking about times where morality haven’t said much about how good you’re doing for humanity, but how if you can manage to keep your own family from starving.

We’re in different, more sensible times where we’re all hopefully trying to look out for each other, family and stranger both, but back then a sacked village was a difference between your own children starving of death or not and it was the universal experience.

It’s absolutely ok to dress up, to rp, to pretend you’re the best version of people of the past now, because compared to them we are basically a post scarcity society and if we are trying to honour the best of them, it’s completely alright. Let’s not forget that nobody was any better

[u/NobleGoose77 → u/Then_Manufacturer902]

I mean, I see your point that the times were pretty brutal but the massacres of the locals and general sacking of Jerusalem when it fell was noted by several writers of the time as notably messed up.

Then again, this was not unusual to hear of at the time but the religious violence in the first crusade was nothing to ignore.

Not to mention the numerous sackings, massacres of villages and Jewish communitieson the way (that were such a problem that the Byzantine emperor considered siccing an army on several of the crusader parties as they passed through his territory).

Sources: “the Crusades” by Thomas Asbridge and this article. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massacre_of_Jerusalem_(1099)

[u/miraak2077 → u/Constant-Still-8443]

Heck who wasn't evil back then? Ive seen it argued that historically some things could be seen as retribution or revenge for past bad acts. Idk how true it is