Thanks for your thoughtful comment, and the work you’ve done with Team Rubicon. I can understand what you mean, and it was something I wrestled with. Based on some research, I think some of the scenarios I had in mind are more extreme than real-world missions, and could warrant security (ex. deployed in the midst of a civil war). Those scenarios are the exception, however. I also made an effort to downplay combat. The security role is the only one that overtly mentions a weapon, and compared to the other roles I think it’s the most basic, so I think there is less incentive to pick it. Finally, I hoped that the incentive to focus on constructive community relationship building would push players to less aggressive solutions.
Those are roughly the considerations I made when developing the game. That being said, I’d love to hear your thoughts on a role that could replace the security role without stepping on another. Maybe you have more insight from your experience? Obviously there is always the choice to not use that role when running the game, but if there is a change I can make to better represent the inspiring groups, I’d certainly consider it.
Thanks again for your feedback!