By Valÿgar Stark.

Abstract
Much to the dismay of myself and others, the heated debates on the concept of "Balance" are often confined to petty arguments over narrow aspects of the concept presented by individuals with little knowledge of the workings of the world imidiatly outside the bubbles of reality in which they confine themselves. What's more, is that no attempt has been made to clearly define the concept that is discussed. This fact renders any contemporary debate largerly irrelevant. In this essay I will attempt to rectify this shortcoming. I will furthermore show how the proponents of a "The Balance" without civilization contradict themselves, and present a broader observation of what the concept of "The Balance" entails.

Conceptualization
The first and most important task in this essay is not a simple one: To clearly define the concept of "The Balance". Now, as the observant reader will notice, the concept is "The Balance", not simply "Balance", which implies a that only certain, pre-determined variables are included in the concept. This then, means that we are looking at something spesific, not "Balance" in a broad term that can include anything somone wish to see in relation to something else. Spesificly, "The Balance" as understood here, refers to the optimal state of "Nature", in which the land is utilized and perserved in a manner that sustain the world as a whole. It does not refer to "Balance" in ethic and morals, and do not propose neutrality in all matters as some falsly believe. The next question then, would ofcourse be "What is Nature"?

"Nature" would here need to be understood in the broadest meaning of the term. "Nature" is not simply trees, water, birds and bushes, it is also mountains, cities, Elves, Men, Dwarves, Gnomes and so forth. "Nature" in this regard, is the sum of everything that is native to Faerun, with certain exceptions that will be mentioned later. The much used division between "Nature" and "Civilization" is inherently false, for the following reasons:

It is the natural instinct of most humanoids to band togheter and build communities in order to survive and improve their lives. As such communities evolve beyond a pack of roaming humanoids into stable settlements (as is a natural and logical path for most humanoids to pursue) they become "civilizations". Does this mean that they cease to be a part of "Nature"? Ofcourse not. They still depend on the land for the resources they need to survive and thrive, and are as affected by their surroundings as their surroundings are affected by them. They are a part of "Nature" still.

This distinction originates both from the "Civilizations" themselves, who sometimes wish to believe that they have evolved into something that exists independently of the world around them, and from those who advocate "Nature" as something pure and unchanging in which everyone are, or should be, wild animals with contempt for anyone who develop and use tools. They are both, as you can see, very narrow interpretations that can be demolished by taking a broader view.

((To be continoud))

_________________
"Edwin do this, Edwin do that. Somebody get this jerk a banana!" - Edwin, BG II

Valygar 'Stonesnake' Stark -Human Ranger
Garret Smith - Archer and peddler of deity-statuettes
Dáin Saltbeard - Dwarven sailor and fencer. No, I'm not joking.