Back in the seventies, in the typical suburban setting, there was a young man who developed a reputation for disappearing whenever there was conflict in the air. He was well-liked by the vast majority he encountered, and his friendship was widely sought by many. He was kind and generous to a fault, almost never critical, and a really good listener. Yet, at the slightest hint of trouble, “poof” he was gone. Was his disappearing a coping, fear-driven response to trauma that conflict could bring, or a wise response from one who was simply skilled at avoiding potentially troublesome entanglements? Maybe a little of both? Can Creator shed some light on this?

So here again, you are dealing with the hypothetical, and so are we, to explain there is a wide spectrum of possibilities here for any of a number of variables that are in play, so it is not appropriate to contrive a particular example as representing the general category of outcomes being similar, and that people will or will not respond in a particular way as a group. There can, indeed, be much wisdom in avoiding a fight. This is embodied in the saying: "Discretion is the better part of valor." So it is all well and good to be courageous, but it is folly to engage an adversary on their terms if what one will end up with is an injury that could otherwise be avoided, or perhaps even death, it is more prudent to withdraw and perhaps avoid such encounters altogether. When the stakes are high and it is a question of morality and ethics, and in particular karmic consequences that will weigh in to assign meaning to an action versus avoidance—that is a different matter. Destiny calls many to act, and to act with dispatch, and even take great risks personally with respect to their own survival in order to be of service to a higher cause, so here again one must weigh the factors involved in any given situation as no two circumstances are identical. There are people who always want to be part of ongoing drama no matter what the reason for its happening. We would see that as reckless. The individual might experience it as having an exhilarating life of action, and many times of great excitement. Because of their soul makeup, they might be thirsty for change and quite strong and resilient internally. That allows them to cope with many dangers and even potential harmful consequences, but likely to bounce back, and once the body is healed they will be happy to launch in again to take part. When there is trouble, most people are in the middle and will err on the side of caution, in fact, to be sure there is a compelling reason to jump into the fray when there is a sign of danger. And of course, there are some who are so timid they will avoid a confrontation at all costs and are as fearful of their own inability to stand up to the challenge as their potential adversary. Here again might be a soul characteristic on display that is front and center because of the nature of a particular circumstance, but again that is a slice of life and not a summary and indictment of the individual as a whole. Such a person might shy away from combat in harboring great fear, but devote their life entirely to someone else out of caring and love, even when it all but ruins their own life and means they will have little luxury or enjoyment because they are on duty constantly, for example, caring for a loved one who is incapacitated or some such circumstance. Whereas that strong warrior who is ready for a bar fight, as well as battlefield, may chafe under the constraints of being in service to someone 24 hours a day, with little freedom of movement potentially, so many things in life will be closed off for them because they must stay close to home and be on duty. So there are many ways of measuring character and all other attributes that stem from character and morality, so this is a more complex discussion and equation needed than would appear on the surface.