What would be a common plausible opinion on the stereotype of the adventurer in a low or non-fantasy medieval setting?

What would be a common plausible opinion on the stereotype of the adventurer in a low or non-fantasy medieval setting?

Eccentric, grandiose men of fortune whose tales are always exaggerated. Mercenaries, tomb-robbers, great warriors and men of renown!

If you haven't seen it, go watch Dwayne Johnson's Hercules for a great way to make 'heroes' as a concept work in a more historical setting. The key is making them genuinely badass, but never quite as badass as the tales that spread about them.

This works equally well for spellcasters, who even if they're limited to weak ritualistic magic [or even no magic at all] can get by to some extent on superstition alone.

Samee as with professionals soldiers/mercenaries of the time.

NEETs who never learned a profitable skill. Troublemakers! or rich kids wasting their family money on playing at glory.

Viewed as little better than hobos (albeit sometimes very richly dressed hobos). They travel from town to town and engage in violence and tomb robing, and who often have the gal to try and charge the locals for the privilege.

They could be considered heroes, martyrs, saviors - the people who are extremely dedicated to whatever they do, and are willing to go to great lengths to achieve their goals. Maybe considered part of a tight group of comrades, and lauded in songs for future ages.

More negatively, they could be seen as thrill-seekers, folks without the decency to settle down to honest labor and wage, or use their skills for the good of their own community. The kind of people who won't care about who they harm or what they do as long as they achieve a means to an end. Probably also bemoaned as likely to come to a bad end, or to otherwise be friendless and alone.

I imagine clerics and paladins would be viewed the most positively overall - spreading the word of their god, generally being just or at least predictable - with wizards and other magic users following suit - they'd be feared, but also respected - and rogues and fighters coming near the bottom - thieves, vagabonds, sellswords and turncoats.

I should clarify with that first part about dedication is that they'll reach heights that are above and beyond what you could ever reach as a quiet court mage or a town guard. May also add to the thrill-seeker stereotype - bored young men and older folks in mid-life crises trying to see if they have a spark of greatness in them.

>Dwayne Johnson's Hercules
Haven't seen it, but the trailer makes it look kind-a shit.

I'm picking up the rest of what you're laying down tho.

The trailer is extremely misleading. The movie's actually pretty fun and a great spin on the character.

Seconding , it's a decent yarn. Watch it for Ian McShane if nothing else.

It's pretty much PTSD: The Film

>killing people
>not profitable
>not genuinely glorious

???

That's all well and done if it's *foreign* people, but adventurers (and their prey) tend to travel.
Sooner or later, they've killed someone from anywhere. No matter where they go, they've killed locals.

We are not exactly glorifying terrorists.
Why on earth will we glorify their equivalent?

*shrugs* They'd be viewed as out-siders or wanderers.

There WERE travelling bards and knight errants back in those days, I assume they would just be thought of as typical travelers. I mean, there's also the typical person who makes pilgrimages.

Not like every person was sitting behind a wall fearing for their lives. every waking moment.

>professional soldiers
>terrorists

Okay kiddo

If they were their equivalent, we'd call them terrorists, you dipshit.

They would probably be regarded with suspicion, but also considered a necessary evil. Most people prefer to put down roots and stay in one place that they consider safe and comfortable. In most cases, only people who are running from something move around a lot. Even people who travel a lot for work have some permanent home to which they return. I imagine people would view adventurers similarly to drifters, anywhere from innocently eccentric to deeply suspicious, partly depending on the person's reputation and how they looked. I imagine that any town that has hired adventurers at any point would also have their opinion colored by that experience. They might view them as helpful and good to have around, a necessary evil to solve problems they can't handle on their own, or just plain signs of looming trouble.

Take the entire Captain America: Civil War arc and translate to fantasy.
> some idealistic people "they're heroes and help people"
> some disgruntled people "they just bring trouble and chaos"
But as a whole depending on your setting most people are probably neutral and see adventurers as tourists who buy things at their shops or stay at their Inn.

>Professional soldiers
Absolutley not. Sellswords would probably be the closest and most positive thing to say about them. Hobomurdering vagabonds with little other choice but to roam and ravage.

>non-fantasy medieval setting?
Just say real world you absolute poof, why is it so difficult.

>OP clearly said medieval
>post Renaissance mercenaries
TG level of history understanding.

>taking pictures at face value

If they are Muslims or kill for their religion, yeah.
If they are white and kill for paid, they are called PMC dogs and get respected as dogs..

Landsknecht