perhaps we are talking about different 'specializations'. i wouldnt consider the differences in peoples interests, mannerisms, and personality 'specialization'. it seems a bit like saying a small rock is 'specialized' at being small... or like saying that i specialize in having brown hair, or having an interest in philosophy, or in playing pokemon. its not a wildly incomprehensible use of language, but -to me at least- it doesnt seem quite right; its not necessarily the most intuitive use of the words. i would describe specialization as deliberate practice and learning of a given behaviour for some sort of material or economic benefit. this broad use would of course include the development of direct skills for ones own survival and pleasure, like running, navigation, hunting, trapping, socializing etc. however, that broad use isnt really how i was meaning either. when i have used it in this conversation i was picturing specialization more along the lines of smithian 'economic' division of labour.
people in social situations dont 'play' roles, at least not the sort of people i would like to spend time with. i prefer genuine people, as opposed to those addicted-to/stuck-in societal norms, social roles, and acting a character -acting being of course euphemism for lying-. some people might be funny, some people might be 'brainy', whatever, but i tend to try not to think of people as an instanciation of a general type. people are people, they cant be reduced like that without you cutting something away from them. i like to think of everything and everyone as unique; identical only to themselves, and understandable only through direct experience.
the egoist anarchist you describe participating in that hypothetical soccer match kinda sounds like a wanker, i doubt many people want to be around him, or play games with him. i wouldnt. its certainly odd behaviour. most people i know /like/ being around other people, and most people enjoy playing games. if i where in the position of that person, i might think it was in my best interest to try and participate in a friendly manner, so as to not rule out the possibility of meeting new people to relate and connect to, and to give myself the opportunity to play new games and have fun. now the egoist anarchist /might/ deliberately fuck up the game and start a fight -thought not many people are big enough to take on two football teams worth of people in a fight, even if they are playing five a side-, then throw the ball in, shout there are no rules, laugh to himself about how clever he is, then get weird side eyes from a bunch of people for a long time. not sure why he would want to though. must be a very unusual fella
the point i am trying to make is you dont have to use 'objective morals', some sort of transcendental totalitarian rule book, to go 'this guy is a fucking loser, lets not hang around with him' or 'this guy is obviously a physical threat, lets a) run away b) fight back'.
same goes for kings and queens and nobles. for me, morality just doesnt come into it; i dont understand moral reasoning, no matter how many times people try to explain it to me. these people /might/ be acting from their own desires and engaging with the world as they find it as both as critically and playfully as they can. seems unlikely to me though; these sorts of 'powerful' people tend to reify notions such as power, glory, honour, wealth etc like they are actual existing objects they can physically have. they seem to go to much length, and put themselves at great risk and under immense stress and strain, just to get these things. what actual benefit does a king starting a risky war with a neighbouring kingdom? he risks losing what he has if the war takes a turn, and if he wins? they can draw new maps? woohoo? your example of a game is a good one. the rules of soccer are made up, arbitrary, but people choose to use them to have fun. society, civilization -whatever you want to call it- is exactly the same; its just a game. except, with this game, people have taken it way too far, forgotten its a game, got super serious, and actually made the whole thing kinda scary. like dungeons and dragons, or magic the gathering. or pokemon.
as an egoist looking at these 'powerful people', they seem less like free individuals acting from their desires and engaging playfully with their world, and more like people /possessed/ by some notion they are powerless to criticise or question. to give a biological example, as you seem to prefer, it seems kind of like those insects whose behaviour is altered by a fungus, and so use the last of their energy to climb up a leaf so that when they die the spores of the fungus will travel further. except, in the case of the rich and powerful, the fungus exists only as ideas, as an arrangement of neurons perhaps, all in the mind. this is my interpretation of max stirner's -saint max's- idea of the 'spook', and my response to your general attitude towards economical society in, and specifically you understandable if mistaken notion of egoist anarchism as 'fuck the world ahaha there are no repercussions for my actions'. egoist anarchists, at least those i think are worthy of the name, do not think that there are no consequences, just that there is no universal rulebook. i like friends just as much as the next guy.
anyway, thanks for keeping the discussion so civil and interesting! its like im not even on the internet anymore; this forum actually has the best atmosphere
edit: removed a dumb emphasis and 'fixed' some spelling