Portraying fantasy societies realistically instead of on the evil/good axis

[Kobold Stew]

On the internet, having actually read a few books makes you a frickin' expert.

 

[VelvetViolet]

Pure hyperbole. One's own children are an extension of self. Protecting your own children is a neutral act, not good, just as bettering your child's lot in life at another's detriment is an evil act. Evil beings corrupt their own children and raise them to thrive in their society. Just because Evil beings will kill children, does not mean they kill any children that blip on the radar. Any 'society' that believes all children must die will be a self correcting problem.

This says otherwise.

 

[Meatboy]

On the internet, having actually read a few books makes you a frickin' expert.

Ha! Probably true but I don't have the time to verify your statement.

The main book in question is Sex and War: How biology explains warfare and terroism and offers a path to a safer world. A bit of mouthful as far as titles go but it was a fascinating read if a tad dense.

 

[pemerton]

The main book in question is Sex and War: How biology explains warfare and terroism and offers a path to a safer world. A bit of mouthful as far as titles go but it was a fascinating read if a tad dense.

At least for my part, I wasn't meaning to dispute the accuracy of your deployment of the biological arguments.

I just happen not to agree with them. I find biological and similar attempts to explain human society and culture (Jared Diamonds's Guns, Germs and Steel is a well known one) tend to be quite weak in comparison to historical and sociological explanations. This thread probably isn't the place to explain why (and there are board rules about politics that could also come into play); it's more that I wanted to indicate that the sociobiological explanatory approach is not universally accepted.