I think the best tool in your toolbox towards this aim is probably language. A lot of how we view something is in how it is described. The culture you are describing sounds very formal, polite and ritualized, even if the acts they are committing are brutal --not unlike feudal Europe or Japan. So, it's a "duel for honor," not a "revenge killing." In this context, even death threats will be very, very polite.

It's worth noting that this technique is in constant real-world use. The actions of our own country are described with a very different vocabulary than those of hostile countries, and devalued cultures are painted as savages for the same actions that are glorified in favored cultures. When we do it, it's a "limited police action," when they do it, it's "unprovoked hostility." Our "glorious victory" is their "brutal massacre."

In general, I would expect this culture to be obsessed with "honor" --that is so often what we call ritualized savagery held in check by formalized structures, and/or a "civilized" predilection to violence. We may still find the values of a highly "civilized" violent culture alien, but we'll be much less likely to dismiss them as savages.

Along with Cyn's suggestion, another tool to introduce a cultural element is to present a conflict about it; somebody complaining that a death threat is being misused.

Like being challenged to a duel, not because you insulted anybody or did anything wrong, but just because the more expert challenger feels like murdering you in a duel; say over a land dispute, or even because the challenger is being paid to do it, or has been lied to by somebody else.

When the cultural element is used improperly, that conflict gives you (the author) the ability to construct a scene, an argument, in which the proper usage is described and what is wrong with this challenge is detailed.

This would be a problem for any culture in which ritualized death threats that can be followed up by a ritualized to-the-death contest are allowed. The strong will rule the weak, and sooner or later somebody comes along that doesn't give a crap about the culture, they just want to exploit legalized murder for fun and profit.

Create that kind of scene, and you have conflict, and the reader caring how this issue turns out, because it matters to the protagonist. And you get to detail more than just one element of the culture, you also get to detail whatever processes are in place to deal with this kind of abuse of the system.

It's all about context and the full portrayal of the characters and culture.

My daughter's ballet teacher is a 90 year old woman. Short to begin with, she's shrunk to under 5 feet. Thin and frail, you could knock her over with a mis-aimed breath. One of her favorite statements, when she doesn't like something you've said (for example, that you will be missing class), is "I kill you" (complete with a non-English accent).

No one has ever considered this a serious threat. Not even when accompanied by one of her trademark (light) slaps on the back of the hand. Why? Because the cultural context is obvious.

Your readers don't know the cultural context of posturing for your characters. So you need to show them. Don't explain it outright and don't create an outsider character whose sole purpose is to be the recipient of info dumps.

• A young person makes a threat and the adults laugh and critique it.


• 2 people threaten each other and their spouses sigh and go prepare the ritual food/clothing/weapon/hula hoop/whatever.


• Someone makes a threat and the other person says "you're too drunk, you won't even remember to bring the ___ tomorrow."


• At least once, the threats and rituals play out in their entirety.

After the first couple of times, the reader will completely get it that these "threats" are common in the culture and that they don't mean what they do in human cultures. Portray these events as completely normal for this culture and your reader will understand.

@Amadeus mentions duels. A crucial fact to the understanding of duelling, mostly ignored in the modern media: it was the seconds' task to attempt reconciliation. So, in fact, asking someone to a duel was a form of ritualised threat, its intent generally to ideally not have to back it up with actual action; but it was ritual with the knowledge that one may need to back it up with actual action.

Since what you're trying to describe very much existed as part of human culture for a considerable length of time, I would present your culture the same way one wrote about duels at the time when they were still being fought. Show the ritual and the limits it sets on behaviour. Show public disapproval when one doesn't act according to expectations, either by not making a threat when they should, or by turning violent without going through the ritual paces first. As other say, show characters respond to behaviour that's normal for your setting as one responds to normative behaviour.

There's a good example in Alexandre Dumas's La Dame de Monsoreau: the Main Character, de Bussy, arrives at the court of Henri III as an ambassador from François d'Anjou. He's repeatedly insulted by Henri's minions, but cannot respond because of his ambassadorial status. Once he leaves, he is free to ask a friend to deliver the challenge. The scene exemplifies the limits ritual sets on one's behaviour: the character cannot issue a challenge in one situation, but must issue it in another.

French language had a word: bretteur. It's a disparaging term for a person who fights many sword duels, not to protect his honour, but for the love of fighting, often using the least excuse to issue a challenge and refusing reconciliation without a fight. This is how musketeers, for example, are portrayed in modern media. It was, however, very much not a positive trait. A similar term could exist in your setting to denote someone who does not act the way society expect, setting the limit on what's "acceptable" in the culture you write about.

Body Language

Body language and how you narrate the interpretations of this body language can be a very useful tool in portraying a lot of these messages without outright saying it.

Jim Butcher has a series called the Codex Alera where the main character meets another species that is sort of a mix between wolves and humans. These are large creatures that can speak, have their own hierarchy and culture. And as expected they are feared by most people. The main character interacts with them a lot and starts to notice patterns in the body language between them. The biggest factor here is that a huge sign of respect is when one wolf-guy lifts his chin up a little. Just enough to show the throat. This was seen as a sign of trust and respect. A sign that they'd trust their life to the other party.

The main character then uses this information and other hints things that he picked up while interacting with them to gain respect from them (and for survival purposes in a few cases).

Depending on the specifics of these creatures you're making you can try slip in a small mention of body language while the character being narrated is making sense of the world.

E.g. He saw Rubin straighten his shoulders and he relaxed himself, content that the danger had passed.

Something like this then associates straight shoulders with relaxation. Then later on you can use this action to portray the sense of relief and relaxation in another situation without having to say that the character is now relaxed/relieved.

Have an "authority class"

We have a society that tends to view a certain type of tall, blue-eyed, grey-haired male, in athletic shape for his age, as authority figures. If you've ever been in the upper corporate sphere, you encounter these men everywhere – far beyond their representation within the human population. I call them Cialis™ Commercials because they look like the models and actors in erectile dysfunction ads. There are tiers of power that are more about physical appearance than meritocracy (you only need to talk to them to realize they are not all geniuses of industry). Their perceived virility traits reap rewards long after they left the wild.

Your species might have a genetic or cultural prejudice towards certain males that exhibit certain favorable traits, which are seen as virile, authoritative, worthy, and strong – traits that show they are in their sexual prime. It doesn't mean the entire population is a warrior cliché, but among the leaders and authority figures these traits will be emphasized, maybe even exaggerated, calculated, or used just to display or gain power.

In your species, dominant males fight other dominant males, so at the "top" of the social pyramid there is a leader who is challenged with public displays of representational violence, and ritualized deference. It may be expected that a leader has dominated all the men around him, whether or not those physical challenges were sincere. In situations of absolute power, those who are assured to win may feel the need to show they are not "pretending" with their subordinates, or otherwise justify why they are entitled to real "scores". They also might be roused into a fighting state, much like a cat can be overstimulated to attack anything moving. The general population will consider this "sexy".

…and everyone else.

There will be other members of the society who don't fit this virility archetype, but still behave as if they do. A female leader will be aggressive because that is the expected behavior of leaders. Meanwhile there will be males who aren't aggressive who will inherit power or gain it through intelligence, but still go through the rituals of power, if not the claws and teeth. It's important to have individuals who don't conform to the cultural norm. Their rough edges will help the culture feel more real and interesting.

While most of the society vicariously focus on their leader's virility displays, that's not to say every school teacher and granny is dressing up like a Klingon and swinging a sword. The vast population will relate to authority figures, but not seek to challenge them. Hyenas are all aggressive, but observe strict rules of deferring to "royals", so it won't be like the Star Trek negaverse where everyone is constantly murdering everyone else.

There will be exceptions to the "savage": counter philosophies, religions that reject the "animal" instincts, and scientific rationalism. There will also be pop stars, advertising, questionable TV shows, and juvenile delinquents who all appeal to anti-authority in countless ways that mortify the authority class.

Such hierarchies are common so should be readily understood by the reader.

When I was a teenager, I had a flock of pet chickens - bantams for the most part. The bantam chicken (rooster or hen) is a very brave animal. I witnessed a six ounce hen chase a twenty two pound cat and that cat ran.

Once the dominance of flock over cat was established, my flock ignored the presence of that cat, often surrounding him and he would seem nervous.

My flock consisted of a few hens and nine roosters, but once the hierarchy was established, they did not fight. The purpose of the pecking order is order and peace and the system works. One rooster was the king of the flock and only challenged once by rising young males needing to find their precise place in the pecking order.

Once I understood my pets, I observed similar behaviour in people. Challenges, usually verbal, were used to establish relative dominance when no other structure (corporate, for example) existed.

In your paradigm, you could have more dominant males claim submissive ones

“Your life is mine. Be useful.”

He quickly dipped his head, thankful for the mercy of continued life.
Now he had a powerful protector and he would be his best vassal.

Savage is a judgement made by outsiders. Explorers considered any peoples they met to be savage, but it was simply a failure to understand.

Present your characters’ culture as a collection of traditions that everyone accepts or at least acknowledges.

Duelling, as has been noted, is a good example.

People are still very territorial and will do much to establish territory and defend it from perceived threats.

Your formal death threats would be easy enough to present as ritual aggression. Ritual aggression is easier to control and predict than random aggression.

1. A species of savages are unlikely to be a space faring race

A group of intergalactic savages would likely be a subgroup of an advanced alien species. For example, the space pirates of an advanced species, savages among a highly evolved species.

2. What you are describing is cultural differences. In old America, the smallest argument could be cause for a duel (maybe your aliens just like to settle things with a duel). In Bushido Japan, a Samurai had the right to cut down any non samurai peasant. (maybe your aliens just see humans as peasants and cutting humans down for any slights(real or perceived) is wholly justifiable.) Or maybe your aliens are space religious zealots. They are just converting the galaxy by blaster fire. Or they aren't like humans at all. Maybe they have a hive mind... They just want to expand to Earth, and the humans have to go (but that doesnt seem to be the direction you are going)

And how you would write them without them coming across as SAVAGES, despite their actions? EASY! Just write some scenes from their point of view. Remember all great villains are heroes in their own story.

Expanded to take into account of the OP's comment.

I can't read your mind. If you are just talking an alien, non human and non-space faring species, on a different planet, and you want to describe them to a human audience..... then you must do a few things.

1. You have to describe their habitat.


2. Their biology. What are these creatures. Are they like ants? or more like some kind of earthly mammals? or more like fish in the ocean? how do they reproduce? Sexual? Asexual?


3. what is their culture like. how do they communicate? Do they have a language? Are they mind readers, where every is an open book to everyone else within a certain distance? Are they hive mind?


4. What are the important resources to their survival?

without a lot of world building information how can we tell if they are savage or not?

For me, the simple answer to this question is to not worry about it. Tell your story, which includes the nature of the society in question, and, more importantly, the characters central to the story you are telling.

Their actions will show the savagery or otherwise of the culture regardless of the norms of behaviour within it.

Have them drink tea

Show them going through rituals which are recognizably similar to those your readers will consider highly civilized, and doing so with similar attitudes.

As Chris Sunami noted in his answer, I would expect honor to be important. Any society in which it's acceptable to kill each other is going to prescribe carefully when it's acceptable. But don't overdo it with honor; that's a dead horse.

You could always try teaching children in the story the difference.

For example: The Lion King. Mufasa describes the ways of the lions quite diplomatically to his son, Simba, and they outright hunt and kill creatures.

You could show a divide of ethics within the culture.

For example: you could have one political party who are trying to reduce the amount of fights, another who are lobbying for designated fighting arenas, or another that wishes for more freedom. Debates between such groups not only build character and show the reader how the culture is instead of telling them, it also provides

You could explain historically how the culture has evolved without losing its roots.

For example: you could highlight how many deaths have been avoided since a particular ruler or belief system has arisen. As cultures adapt over time, it'd be interesting to know what caused the culture to treat fighting and killing the way that they do.

You can gather from the tone of other replies that the general concept of duelling is not alien at all and there's a danger of readers thinking of your species as just humans in other clothing. Can you think of a way for them to fight it out that's not human? If the entire battle occurs in the form of radio emissions, for example, it won't appear savage or civilized, but just alien. Or perhaps hunting for this species is more a matter of hiding and finding than of threats and killing. Has it occurred to you that fights among the same species is not a necessary trait of hunters but of species that have social dominance behaviors? Rattlesnakes don't fight each other but wild sheep do.

More to the point, you show that they're not savages by having them do something civilized or constructive, tied up with the fighting in a non-obvious way. For instance, a character doesn't fight enough because the Arts Committee is taking up too much of his/her time, and a doctor tells him that it's harming his health.

Study how real cultures have done similar things. Consider how ritualistic warfare worked in many tribal societies in the real world. Many tribal cultures and even a few urban cultures all over the world fought their wars as almost a kind of rugby match. Lots of posturing, but very little actual lethal violence.

Native Americans in the Great Plains and in the Pacific Northwest had the concept of "counting coup", in which the warriors would try to touch their opponent, then escape.

Ancient Greek city-states had frequent wars, but these were almost scheduled. They would go to the same areas at the same time of year, line up in phalanxes, and shove each other for a few hours until one side tired out and broke rank. Yes, they had sharp weapons, but casualty rates were usually very low.

The key point in all of these is that while killing is a possibility, it's not a goal. The goal is to prove one's superiority, not to kill the opposition. So your aliens should be totally willing, almost eager to fight, but very unwilling to kill. Combatants who kill "needlessly" will face social consequences; shunning, missed opportunities due to poor reputation. To make sure these aliens don't come across as savage, make them require a great deal of provocation to kill, even greater than us. Perhaps being assaulted with a possibly deadly weapon is not enough provocation. Maybe they only kill if their opponent continues being violent even after they have conceded defeat.