There is a problem over there, and since we have arrived, we can say "there is a problem here." We may resolve it nicely, we may resolve it fairly, we may resolve it cooperatively, but resolve it we will, and if none of the above work, we will do whatever it takes anyway. The latter option is very definitely something we are good at, which is bad for anyone who opposes us. For we are right and you are wrong.
Is this something anyone should really be doing, as a heroized topic in fiction? I claim no authority over how anyone chooses to role-play or what about, but that doesn't mean I have no position about this topic. I most certainly do.
Tommi deserves the credit for raising the topic in the comments of Lone Wolf Adventure Game. The video below was first presented as a response in that discussion, so backtrack to it if you'd like.
In addition to my points in the video, these topics are included as well:
- The institutional or establishmentarian version, which we often see as "agents" or for a little face-saving, "freelancers." I jumped a little too quickly to the wanderer/scofflaw version in the video.
- (sigh - might as well) The rabbit hole to hell which yawns between the original 1960s Star Trek and the franchise which followed.
I know that some of you are just itching and twitching to talk about Dogs in the Vineyard and Circle of Hands, which I claim are subversion and defiance of this concept, respectively, and acknowledging as well that Dogs is often not realized or played as such. I'm OK with that - but please, not until we work over the primary or baseline concept first in some discussion here, and arrive at some solid "like that" examples we can use for comparison.