Talk:Richard Rahl

Merging With Richard Cypher

These two articles are about the same person. They really should be merged into one in order to be encyclopedic. -- Redfarmer 01:15, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

• I agree. I've always thought that the existing situation is somewhat odd. It is my opinion that Richard Cypher should be merged into this article, as this is how he is reguarly referred to. --Canderson7 01:19, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

• I think the rationale is that his true name, being related to Darken Rahl, is actually a spoiler, and so should be kept under a spoiler tag. — flamingspinach | (talk) 04:46, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

• Yes, the very title of this article is a spoiler, and that's a bad thing. I move that we change the article title back. KevinPuj 02:42, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

This article badly needs some updating. It only extends to the first book. There's like ten of them now.

I disagree. if you look at the situation; Richard Cypher was seen, even by Richard himself, as a wood's guide.Fun loving, never liked to fight, and always found a way out of trouble by telling a funny joke or two. Richard Rahl is his later role as Seeker, Lord Rahl, peeble in the pond, Bringer of death,ect. To say that this is the same man is true in a sense but not truely factial.When thrown into a sittuation such as his, you must improvise, adapt, and overcome. He never changed who he was only changed his outlook and his goals. Cypher just wanted to be left alone in his woods. Rahl knows that if he doesn't do his duty the life and love he knows will be gone. Now, if anyone here has had to overcome anything that almost killed you then you can see that a person can be differant in many ways after it all said and done with.Your still in the same body. you look just like you always have.(Baring any physically changes that might have happened.)You still have the things that matter most. But you, as a person have changed in ways that you can't go back to. This is something that Richard has been talking about sense he first killed someone in wizard's first rule. There is always two side to life and the gift. As pointed out by Darken Rahl. Richard even says after all this he wants to go back to living the life of Richard Cypher but this time with Kahlan. But, we all know that's not happening. He has been threw too much to go back to his old life. But doesn't mean he won't have an even better life with Kahlan because of what has happened. And as being a spoiler to anyone who reads it, I don't agree. how can something be spoiled if you have no idea what it is. only after you find out what it is can you know that you already knew it. that knowledge isn't spoiled in anyway. it is only added to the amount you already knew. and if people want to find out what the differants between Cypher and Rahl is, let them find out. If you don't believe me look up Wizard's rule number two. That's the best way i know how to explain it. if anyone wants to talk anymore about the sword of truth hit me up at http://profile.myspace.com/33956461

• I also think this should be separated, or at least in some way hide the fact that Richard is actually of the Rahl bloodline. I stumbled into this trap as I was reading Wizard's First Rule, and had that part of the plot ruined for me.--MattG987 (talk) 07:22, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

i agree.... i'm actually pretty upset now that i just had this spoiled for me, i had no clue that he was a Rahl until this article, linked from the main article on the books, pointed this out to me. now its ruined 98.217.21.255 (talk) 02:39, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Atrocities?

You've got to be kidding me. His abandoning Anderith was an atrocity? Yeah, him and Kahlan and Cara are going to fight all of Jagang's incoming army. Great idea. And force his rule upon them. Good idea. And abandoning an army is an atrocity? Please. This section ought to be renamed and be less sensational, IMO. RobertM525 18:27, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

-I completely agree with you. Most of the things in the "Atrocities" section that Richard has done are things that the people chose for themselves, or brought on themselves by their actions. In my opinion, the entire "Atrocities" section is written from a highly non-neutral point of view. I suggest it be removed entirely. RxScram 04:29, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Magicana: Totally agreed. Glad to see it is gone.

Too much detail?

Or rather, strongly skewed detail - the article as it is now basically retells the first so many chapters of Wizard's First Rule, and then basically stops apart from the "Overview" section, which in turn is filled with spoilers, which doesn't seem ideal for an "Overview". I propose the following: a paragraph about his character, spoiler-free, and his defining characteristics, and perhaps also his importance in the whole of SoT. Then, a paragraph "Biography", which can talk about his earlier life (though, imho, with rather less detail than is the case now) but should also tell the story of the series so far, or at least those parts he was directly involved in himself. If someone wants to really make this detailed, they can always take a look at the character template of the WikiNovels project. Either way, though, some parts of this are far too detailed - we aren't trying to reproduce the books here. I'll not start cutting heavily without any consensus, of course, and I think there are more capable persons than myself when it comes to writing his biography througout the series, but I do think cutting is necessary... thoughts? Paul Willocx 12:27, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Mzombie 15:15, 30 August 2006 (UTC) - Agreed. I thought the same thing when I first read this article.

Prophecies

What about the prophecies naming Richard as the pebble in the pond and, more importantly the one in High D'Haran describing him as Fuer Grissa ost Drauka (The Bringer of Death), which is a name used throughout the series apllied to Richard Rahl. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 00:21, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Richard Rahl and Lying

I re-applied my comments about him lying. It has been some time since I read the series, but I remember how I thought it odd that the Seeker of truth would so readily lie. Off the top of my head, from the first book, is the lie about which box his father should open. This is excusable. More blatant, however, was the convoluted lie he told about being immune to the curse of red fruits, and this immunity making his body poisonous and deadly to anybody with whom he is intimate. I feel that this contrast is important enough to merit mentioning for people to understand the character that Goodkind created. I have not been able to think of a non-wordy example (my examples above only make sense to people who have read the book) --Bertrc (talk) 22:47, 16 November 2008 (UTC)for the article

Richard's being the Seeker of Truth does not preclude him from lying. Being the Seeker of Truth just means that he is to find the truth of what people are saying, and to uphold the truth in matters of great importance. While he doesn't lie often on principal (nothing major for instance, or when it's unnecessary), he is still able to lie. I understand that it's a bit interesting that a someone so related to the truth is capable of lying, but I wouldn't say that it's a major defining point of his character (again, he doesn't do it often enough). As for the red fruit thing, that was so that he wouldn't have to betray his own feelings. Though, that's just my two cents. Pyrotics (talk) 14:01, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree. There is anything wrong with him lying, but I do feel it is worth mentioning. I don't think the language over stresses it. Do you? --Bertrc (talk) 00:17, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Mary Sue Type Character

Any possible way to mention that this character is blatantly a Mary Sue type character? Several friends had me read the first book, then eventually the second book and both were painfully clear that the author loved this guy too much and was trying too hard to make Richard Cypher a god among men. By the end of the first book he's already proven to be potentially a first class Additive magic wizard, descendent of the most powerful Subtractive magic and therefore potentially the same himself, he is immune to the most powerful confessor in the world, has some control over birds, is owed a favor by a dragon, in possession of a legendary powerful sword AND survived torture under a group of people renowned for inflicting pain - thereby pretty much having the potential to become one of them. And that's all in the first book! What are his flaws? There's nothing he won't do the most powerful confessor, so he's immune to her too. He's generally too helpful - so he managed to get a lethal monster creature (Gar) loyal to him. His weakness is basically that he's too awesome.

The second book is pretty much more of the same. He just gets more powerful after more torture. He gets full wizard training.99.240.146.252 (talk) 23:10, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I think that that falls under Original Research. Heh, I don't know Mary Sue; personally, I think the plagiarism is against Robert Jordan's Wheel of Time series.--Bertrc (talk) 01:50, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

He isn't meaning a character when he uses the term "Mary Sue". A "Mary Sue" is (from the wiki article) "...sometimes shortened simply to Sue, is a pejorative term used to describe a fictional character who plays a major role in the plot and is particularly characterized by overly idealized and hackneyed mannerisms, lacking noteworthy flaws, and primarily functioning as wish-fulfillment fantasies for their authors or readers".

HOWEVER, I disagree that Richard is a Mary Sue, yes, in many ways, Richard is way more awesome than a normal human being could be, but that lends itself naturally to his being the hero of the novels. Richard is, however, given to false judgments, doubts, and mistakes. He is often fallen to breaking the Wizard's rules (notably doing so while trying to FOLLOW said rules). He is exceptional, true, but he is not perfect (as a Mary Sue would be). As well, Richard is very headstrong, and has occasionally thought poorly of people who are not deserving of his chagrin due to his own mistakes. In all, I think that Richard is a character who is just trying to do his best for what he believes in, and, while he is generally more able than his peers, is more than capable of failing just as much as succeeding in his attempts. Pyrotics (talk) 18:22, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Wow, I had never heard of that. Thanks, Pyrotics. Considering how much I like Star Trek, I am ashamed I did not know that bit of lore. Hmmm, by that definition, I actually think he is a Mary Sue character, but I still think that it is original research/personal opinion. Maybe some literary critic will mention it some day. --Bertrc (talk) 00:20, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Plagiarism

I just wanted to underline the fact that some passage of the article directly refers to the book one of the serie. It is exactly word for word what the author had written. So maybe this passage needs to be rewritten in order to be more neutral, for plagiarism is illegal. --Damien Tomasini (talk) 09:25, 21 May 2009 (UTC)