Talk:Richard Rahl

message: 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)
thread_title: Merging With [[Richard Cypher]]

message: 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)
thread_title:  Atrocities? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Too much detail?  

message: 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)
thread_title: Prophecies

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Richard Rahl and Lying 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Plagiarism