First view: Pluralism is good in polytheism because it allows for individual choice and differences in opinion and practice.
Second view: Pluralism is bad for polytheism because it doesn’t encourage unity and causes weaknesses by multiplying differences.
Balanced view: Although being a term that properly applies *between* rather than *within* distinct communities, polytheism also inherently allows for individual choices that are not divisive.
By virtue of the history of polytheism, as well as the etymology of the word itself (many-Gods), there is natural and necessary room for plural ways to exist. A quick observation over the multitude of traditions, past or present, throughout the world proves this point. However, at this time of revival and regrowth for lost traditions, the question of unity and division inevitably arises and necessitates some reflection. To what degree can we differ before we undermine our efforts, and are there any limitations and rules to follow in that regard? I think this extremely important point can be best understood, as well as resolved, by the concept of “community”, which I am glad repeat so often. Our ancestors, while belonging to one or another larger ethnic tradition, always rooted their practices of polytheism within their smaller, distinct communities. This allowed for slow and organic variations* to develop, bearing the distinct and collective mark of the people and the Divine Beings that patronized them. People naturally exist within groups and homogeneity of people and principle within that group is what enables a community to remain stable and happy. For this reason, while individual choices did certainly have a place within community, these had limitations and were regulated by the authority of a majority and the chieftain, archpriest, elder, etc. who represented the interests and unity of that same majority. It is common sense to believe that that individuals cannot find happiness outside of a group to which they can truly belong, and at the same time it is equally true a community cannot stand firm if too many individuals within it set their own choices above the common good and collective interest. This is where pluralism can really be useful: individuals who find themselves alienated by their native community, for whatever reason, always have the ability to join other communities or even establish new ones. This is much more preferable to stirring up division and weakening the unity of the majority, and it is also the natural way of our ancestors. How else do we have so many wonderful and distinct traditions, and why else do we oppose the uniformity of all communities that monotheism enforces? Monotheism prefers the structural power and expansion of a permanent federalism (if not an absolute state), whereas we may better choose the fair diversity of a confederalism (with room for a temporary federalism in times of difficulty) not only between distinct communities within a region, but also among all traditions throughout the whole world. This is why pluralism is better than multiculturalism, and this is how we can both unite and preserve our distinct ways for future generations to come.
*The metaphor of a slowly cooked meal, which is always more delicious and healthier than a meal cooked fast, applies very well here.