Is there any real world analogue to the Adventurer?

[The Grackle]

Sir Richard F. Burton is my favorite real-world adventurer. He explored East Africa in disguise, spoke over twenty languages, translated the Arabian Nights into english(w/o abridging the sexual content, pretty wild for a victorian), and even wrote fencing manuals.

 

[GlassJaw]

I've been following this thread and see some common trends in peoples' definitions of adventurer:

1. Paid for services, and usually operates indendently, adventuring party notwithstanding
2. Readily utilizes violence
3. Willing to travel
4. Fights for good, more or less

Given those "criteria", I don't think there is a read-world analogue, at least not anymore. Many of the examples given in this thread usually meet 2 or 3 of the criteria but I haven't seen any easily fit into all 4.

 

[Kunimatyu]

Wulf, I don't think there are many people at all who would fit the 'do good' model of the Adventurer. Tribe, family, and deity were all motivators, but true altruist adventurers would be difficult to come by in the real world, since you can't kill monsters and take their stuff, you can only kill people and take their stuff.

The other thing that's messing with the definition is "party size", if you will. Most real-world explorers, especially the 'greats' like Columbus, Leif et al traveled with 'parties' of hundreds of people -- I can't think of many at all who accomplished great deeds with groups of 4-6 like in D&D. You could perhaps make a case for special ops teams in modern militaries, or small merc groups, but I lack familiarity with Blackwater and the like to really know.

 

[Tonguez]

Wulf, I don't think there are many people at all who would fit the 'do good' model of the Adventurer. Tribe, family, and deity were all motivators, but true altruist adventurers would be difficult to come by in the real world, since you can't kill monsters and take their stuff, you can only kill people and take their stuff.

Then again the Mercenary/Adventurer taking on special missions to stop harm by the 'tyrant regime' probably thinks he is on the 'good side' whether that tyrant happens to be a Necromancer, a Pirate or a modern dictator.

(I include Pirate here in reference to Captain Kidd, who was hired as a Privateer by various wealthy NPCs to hunt Pirates. Despite his ignominous demise I think he makes another good candidate for real-world adventurer an independent contractor taking pay to fight on the side of good.)

The other thing that's messing with the definition is "party size", if you will. Most real-world explorers, especially the 'greats' like Columbus, Leif et al traveled with 'parties' of hundreds of people -- I can't think of many at all who accomplished great deeds with groups of 4-6 like in D&D.

Thats what Cohort and followers are for

and again the Privateer crew could be said to be the party of 6 + followers

 

[Wilphe]

I've been following this thread and see some common trends in peoples' definitions of adventurer:

1. Paid for services, and usually operates indendently, adventuring party notwithstanding
2. Readily utilizes violence
3. Willing to travel
4. Fights for good, more or less

Given those "criteria", I don't think there is a read-world analogue, at least not anymore. Many of the examples given in this thread usually meet 2 or 3 of the criteria but I haven't seen any easily fit into all 4.

I think 1 should be split up and 4 qualifed

1) Usually operates in small groups, indepdent of any government
2) Readily utilizes violence
3) Willing to travel
4) Fights for <their alignment>, more or less
4a) Or Expects equivalent rewards.


2 and 4 would be the sticking point. In the West it hasn't happened since the Spanish Civil War when everyone from all over the political spectrum went to fight in the closest thing we've ever had to a battle of all alignments.

Apart from that the more recent analogies to people travelling a long way to fight for their particular beliefs are not especially appetising:
-Anti-Communist Non-Germans such as the Blue Division who volunteered to fight on the Russian front (though they fall foul of 1)
-Those Cubans who sought to spread Revolution through Africa and South America.
-Al Queda (who are the Eldreth Veluuthra without the pointy ears)

+++++++++++++++++++++​

Basically you are looking at people who act without the sanction of government and are willing to employ violence to make a lot of money, probably involving a lot of killing, looting and pillaging. We call people like that bandits, criminals and warlords.

If they are breaking into old tombs to seek treasure, then we call them vandals, looters and theives.

And if they are "fighting evil" then they are called terrorists


[edit: Apologies if that falls foul of the "No politics" rule]

 

[Celebrim]

Ah yes Private Security Contractors - the new face of Mercenary

Well, sorta. There are similarities and certainly in many cases the training is there, but PSC's don't meet the legal definition of mercenary. I think that PSC's may go that direction as 1st world nations find it increasingly hard to keep thier top military personnel on the pay role directly given the lucrative salaries offered by private industries, but at present PSC's are just glorified body gaurds, advisors, and security gaurds. Other than the firepower they carry, they are little different conceptually from the security people you find at the mall.

Last I heard, 'Executive Outcomes' and most of the similar true mercenary companies that were springing up in the late '80's and early '90's were defunct. I'm not even sure how many of the Soviet advisors turned independent contractors planted around the world are still in business. 'Executive Outcomes' and the ex-soviet mercenary companies Aloïsius mentioned are most certainly not 'Private Security Contractors'. The technical term for what they provide is 'Private Military Contractor'.

I personally think that the difference between a PSC and a PMC is alot greater than what some observers claim. I also think that alot of the so called 'PMC's are really just reinvented camp followers and even less like mercenaries than PSC's. Lately, it seems like some people want to describe every private company that provides a service to the military as a PMC, even if all they doing is providing a laundry service. It's annoying. The problem with that definition, besides the fact that it does more to obfuscate the truth than reveal it, is that by that definition Burger King is a PMC. I would think that there is clearly a big difference between the service Burger King provides, and the service provided by something like 'Executive Outcomes'.

When PSC's start going around in AFV's and planning and executing offensive operations, then sure, they are mercenaries. But providing VIP security is a long long way from that.

 

[S'mon]

"PSC's don't meet the legal definition of mercenary"

It's true that Private Military Corporations hate being called mercenaries, but I think this is because 'mercenaries' as such are defined by the UN as foreigners hired to overthrow the government of a sovereign state. Thus they are illegal. But this is a far narrower definition than the conventional definition of mercenaries, and seems to be derived from the post-colonial 'Dogs of War' era. Modern PMCs are hired by governments, especially now the US govt, to perform all non-offensive military operations.

To most people, if you're carrying guns & fighting in a war zone, and working for a company, you're a mercenary.

 

[Jolly Giant]

I notcie several people have already mentioned Vikings, but as I have the last two years spent an awful lot of my free time reading up on Viking history and culture, I'd just like to pipe in an say that they fit the bill perfectly. Going out exploring strange lands and risking their life for fame and fortune is exactly what being a Viking is all about.

Even the bit about a desire to "do good" (see original post) fits; if you see things from the Vikings' perspective. They first started their raiding as a response to the extremely agressive expanionism and forced christianisation led by Charlemagne. This will take some explaining, read on if you want to:

At the time of the first Viking raid, Charlemagne had conquered pretty much all of western Europe, and had just completed his campaign against the Saxons. He had stolen thier lands, looted their homes and killed an unknown number of Saxons. In a single infamous day, he forcefully baptized and beheaded all 4500 men in a Saxon town, because some of the citizens were still worshipping their old gods.

The next step for Charlemagne was logically to go against the Celts and the Scandinavians. He established a monastery/military outpost on the island Lindisfarne, off the west coast of England. Very likely to launch an invasion of Scandinavia from there. Charlemagne's foremost advisor on religious matters (i.e. he headed the Christening process against the heathen Saxons, although he himself was of Saxon birth.), a priest called Alcuin, was head of this monastery.

Simultaneously Charlemagne launched his first attack against the Celts (who were the Vikings' closest friedns and allies), from England into Scotland, but he was driven back. As he was amassing forces to strike again, the very first Viking raid happened. Norwegian Vikings pillaged, burned and looted Lindisfarne. They killed all the soldiers and most of the priests there, but allowed Alcuin to live so he could go tell Charlemagne what happened if you messed with the Vikings.

In other words, the Vikings were defending themselves (figuring the best defence is a good offence) and their right to go on practicing their own religion. In their eyes, this surely constituted as "doing good". They kept on attacking churches, monasteries and Christian lands. They even sailed up the river Seine and looted Paris, the capitol of Charlemagne's empire. Not only did they pillage and plunder his city and his palace, he even had to bribe them with an enormous treasure to make them leave again, just so he could get his city back.

<end lengthy historical explanations and justifications>

Finally, I'd like to mentioned another few histoical adventuerers; the earliest European explorers of Africa and South America. Guys like Dr. Livingston; and Stanley, who followed later, for example.

 

[Bert the Ogre]

I would say yes, there are "professional adventurers" out there, and they do even form their own organizations, although not necessarily the "Standard Four" team.

Fighters: Military Contractors, especially those from Blackwater and a few other "mercenary" companies. Highly trained, highly motivated, well paid.
Rogues: The Mafia IS the Thieve's Guild! Read or watch "Goodfellas." It's about the basic money-makers for the Mob, thieves and hijackers.
Clerics: Missionaries, from the two Mormon boys on their bicycles and with their white shirts, black trousers and ties to any other missionary traveling the world, spreading the word of God.
Magic-Users: This one is tricky to define, but I'd say anyone in the "scientific" field. archaeologists, anthropologists (Gandalf the Grey implied he was the only "Halfling Anthropoligist" Middle Earth had), botanists, zoologists, etc. Magic-Users are usually seen as "knowledge seekers," which is the definition of scientists.

However, in modern times these four rarely, if ever, end up together on an "adventure." The mercenaries MAY end up escorting the clerics and/or the magic-users, but the rogues tend to go for "urban adventures." Of course, is it "archaeological research" or "grave-robbing?" And even the most noble Paladin in training has probably said at least once, "OK, the goblins are dead. I search their bodies, how much gold or silver did they have?"

Historically, there may have been a bigger mix of "adventurers," coming to the New Worlds seeking God, Glory, and Gold. And England sent shiploads of Fighters, Rogues and more than a few Clerics to Australia...

 

[pogre]

Dog the Bounty Hunter