I've long just kinda' wondered about crime and banditry and general social abuses in settings like D&D (and especially Xianxia), 'cause, like, it's almost always depicted as as-bad or worse than what we see in a less extreme setting, but you're dealing with a scenario where the random hobo or caravan occupant you're trying to shake down for change might be able to crack a dragon's skull with their thighs, and it doesn't make sense for such things to be operating in any way that'd look familiar to us.
Great swaths of those depictions also involve showing a likely scenario for such behavior (i.e. they run into a murderhobo band or golden thumbed nonsense cultivator or something and get smooshed), and you'd think the culture would be, just... noticeably different. Because of it. Much more cautious, etc. Less likely to do something that'd trip over someone with a pocket fireball or seventy-seven finger death punch.
Like, I get it's a narrative conflict thing and the DMs or writers or whatever are doing it because of the common (albeit incorrect!) perception there must be conflict and specific sorts of conflict for a story to proceed, but it's always just kinda' rubbed me wrong. Criminals and abusers aren't dumb all that often, barring pretty debilitating issues they're not going to be super stupid about who they target under most circumstances, so basically every interaction seen being one sort or another getting roadkilled by a protagonist-equivalent due to being super stupid about who they target is just. Doesn't feel right, y'know? If they're still alive as an established adult bandit or whatev' they should know better than to shortchange ted kaczynski, 'cause the ones that don't should have already been mulched!