This article examines “role” as one of the key components of the architecture of the “moment” within the author’s system of the Metalogy of the Moment. “Role” is understood not as a social mask, theatrical function, or external status, but as an inner position through which a person enters what is occurring, perceives the situation, directs their “state,” and prepares the further “vector.” Within the Metalogy of the Moment, three basic forms of “role” are distinguished: the “victim,” the “aggressor,” and the “observer.” The “victim” is associated with the loss of inner support and the surrender of authority to what is occurring. The “aggressor” is associated with an attempt to seize the “moment” by force and subordinate the situation to one’s own reaction. The “observer” is presented as the most mature form of inner participation, allowing a person to see what is occurring, distinguish their own “state,” avoid dissolving into reactivity, and choose a further “vector” without destructive submission to fear, pain, or anger. The article is structured as a dialogue between the Metalogy of the Moment and Viktor Frankl, whose thought on inner freedom and the human capacity to choose one’s attitude toward circumstances provides an important philosophical and psychological point of support for understanding the choice of “role.” At the same time, the Metalogy of the Moment does not repeat Frankl’s logotherapy, but develops its own architecture of passage: “metamoment” → “moment” → “state” → “role” → “vector” → “decision” → “action” → “event.” In this sequence, “role” occupies the central place of transition from inner “state” to the direction of the further “vector.”