LFG: a character comparison theory

[Berserk Monk]

So, after reading Looking for Group for a couple years, I've just noticed something:

This guy...

Spoiler

Show

...is the...

Spoiler

Show

...of Looking for Group.

Both homicidal, coldblooded killers who are the main (if not only) source of comedy for the comic they're in.

[Gundato]

Not quite. Deadpool is the intentional star of his comic, and tends to have character development.

Richard is just the only character the author writes for, and is the only borderline entertaining character.

Think of it more like this:
LFG is Heroes for Hire (not the good one, the one with Black Cat and the tentacle porn cover), and Richard is a permanent guest appearance by Wolverine. Fun in moderation, but when it is the author's only hope of entertainment...

[Drakyn]

Or he's simply

Spoiler

Show

but without any apparent weaknesses or random karma punting him every five minutes.

[Berserk Monk]

Not quite. Deadpool is the intentional star of his comic, and tends to have character development.

Does this count as character development?

[Drakyn]

I think it comes off more as cementing a capstone of author's boytoy onto him. Now not only is he:
-Absurdly powerful.
-The only person still allowed to be funny.
-The only person still allowed to commit random violence with no in-story repercussions.

He also gets a bonus bit of "oh look at how serious I can be when it really matters" piled on top.
I'd probably like him more if Ryan wasn't also writing another comic featuring a similarly over-the-top character (Ryan rites Rayne 'n Richard ridiculously roverpowered....odd pattern) that shares a few of these tendencies. Richard's in a much more overall-serious setting, however, so he sticks out more. They both get a similar deal, though; a flash of "character-development-from-above" that...doesn't really change how they act, just gives a backdoor so that they can be claimed to not be that shallow.

[Berserk Monk]

Or he's simply

Spoiler

Show

but without any apparent weaknesses or random karma punting him every five minutes.

I disagree. Richard doesn't lust over another spellcaster.

[Drakyn]

Well, he IS dead. I presume once your blood is congealing in your veins certain bodily functions become more difficult to perform. Plus, your hormones wouldn't be up to much.

[Blackjackg]

Does this count as character development?

I'm not sure, but that one page is easily the greatest thing Sohmer and Lar ever wrote/drew. It's the only thing about Richard that I've enjoyed since the first few pages when the character was still (slightly) original. Now I'm pretty sure that Pella is the only hope for the comic.

And yeah, Rayne is clearly Sohmer's Mary Sue. Richard has some of the same qualities but... twisted. As a character, he gets pretty pampered by the writer. It would be nice if Cale or Krunch (or, gods forbid, Benny) got a smidgeon of the attention Richard gets. But then, it might be nice if Durkon got as much TLC as Belkar. And it would be nice if Hershey Kisses rained down from the sky...

[Drakyn]

Cale's being set up as a king-to-be, and whenever we aren't looking at Richard being Richard we're looking at Cale ordering people around. Richard has the story's humor locked in swiss bank in his name, but Cale is constantly dragging around the main plot. Whatever that is, nowadays.
I'll admit I'm the farthest possible thing from unbiased on this whole topic. As of about eight months ago I became completely unable to think of anything any of Ryan's characters ever do, anywhere, as awesome, whether they're the good guys or the villains. Instead it just registers as obnoxious.

[Trazoi]

I don't know Deadpool, but I agree with Drakyn's comparison with Black Mage. However Black Mage works for me because of his bad karma, his personal failings (he's not meant to be likeable as a person) as well as the slapstick crapsack world setting. I couldn't get more than a few dozen pages into Looking for Group because I didn't find Richard's pointless over-the-top evil to be funny, and it got old very fast.

[FoE]

Now I'm pretty sure that Pella is the only hope for the comic..

Pella? Pfffft.

Cale remains the main draw of the comic.

[Blackjackg]

Pella? Pfffft.

Cale remains the main draw of the comic.

Stuff and nonsense. Cale waffles between an emo "I alone bear the weight of the world" Christ complex and a rather pathetic man-crush dependence on Richard. Admittedly, he occasionally spices it up with some rather righteous combat moves, but most of the time he's practically unreadable.

I'm exaggerating the case significantly because it amuses me to do so, but you can't deny that the character really only has three settings: "Being Responsible is Hard," "I'm totally extreme--like, Legolas extreme" and "Where's Richard?"

Pella, on the other hand, has a creative concept, is equally badass in combat, does what she needs to do without whining, is surprisingly attractive for a cartoon dwarf and, unlike with Cale, it is not obvious how her story will end.

Anyway, that's my opinion.

[Morty]

Pella is so one-dimensional it's not even funny. Then again, all the characters in the comic are one-dimensional. And while I have no idea who this Deadpool guy is, I remain confident he's a better character than Richard Sue.
And the funny thing about Cale is how he wades in emo "oh how I'd like to live without violence" crap and then proceeds to slaughter a dozen of enemy soldiers who are only obeying their orders.

[Gez]

People who don't know about Deadpool could go to wikipedia entries or something, but instead I think that this and that should teach you all you need to know about the character in a funnier way.

[Indon]

I think it comes off more as cementing a capstone of author's boytoy onto him.

Personally, I consider it more a justification as to why the unbelievably evil character is actually following around and helping the good guys, particularly as the good guys segue into epic, world-changing goodness.

And I'm pretty sure that Richard's Mary-Sue status is not only quite intentional, but is a part of the joke.

Richard is what you'd get if you took Black Mage and Richard Rahl and threw the characters into a melting pot and stirred vigorously (and added a dash of disney for teh lulz). And that's pretty clearly the idea.

[Blackjackg]

And I'm pretty sure that Richard's Mary-Sue status is not only quite intentional, but is a part of the joke.

Richard is what you'd get if you took Black Mage and Richard Rahl and threw the characters into a melting pot and stirred vigorously (and added a dash of disney for teh lulz). And that's pretty clearly the idea.

While I wouldn't put it past Sohmer to reference Terry Goodkind in any context, for any reason, I suspect the name "Richard" was given more so that Cale could call him "****" than as an uncharacteristically sidelong reference to the Sword of Truth.

EDIT: Really? They bleep that?

[Indon]

While I wouldn't put it past Sohmer to reference Terry Goodkind in any context, for any reason, I suspect the name "Richard" was given more so that Cale could call him "****" than as an uncharacteristically sidelong reference to the Sword of Truth.

EDIT: Really? They bleep that?

I imagine he's also mocking the Rahl character with that - or at least, the idea of having a character with such an obvious nickname.

Basically, you can see the character of Richard summarized wholly here, and in the last panel here. He's a satire/homage of Richard Rahl, and he's evil 'cause it's funny.

[Gez]

EDIT: Really? They bleep that?

Yes. As a result, we can't discuss British desserts here.

[Drakyn]

Personally, I consider it more a justification as to why the unbelievably evil character is actually following around and helping the good guys, particularly as the good guys segue into epic, world-changing goodness.

And I'm pretty sure that Richard's Mary-Sue status is not only quite intentional, but is a part of the joke.

Richard is what you'd get if you took Black Mage and Richard Rahl and threw the characters into a melting pot and stirred vigorously (and added a dash of disney for teh lulz). And that's pretty clearly the idea.

See, I'm not entirely sure it works at all. Lord knows I'm not the universal representative of the common consciousness of humanity, but I think the only way you can make an obnoxious, un-screwable, overpowered character fun is to purge at least one of the three prior traits to him. Also, I doubt that Richard is an utter parody of a Suish character simply because Sohmer's already put in a habit of running this sort of author-pet in his other webcomic. If we want to say he is ALSO a parody that could work, but I'd argue that if they are they're both played in such a manner that it loops straight back to straight-lining it.

[Indon]

Read the whole thread.

He's a satire/homage of Richard Rahl, and he's evil 'cause it's funny.

[Drakyn]

Lord knows I'm not the universal representative of the common consciousness of humanity, but I think the only way you can make an obnoxious, un-screwable, overpowered character fun is to purge at least one of the three prior traits to him.

If we want to say he is ALSO a parody that could work, but I'd argue that if they are they're both played in such a manner that it loops straight back to straight-lining it.

Can we please stop quoting ourselves? I feel dirty now. Like I need to wash my hands :(

Anyways, like I've said, I'm not unbiased and this is all probably more opinion than fact. I'd probably say likewise about the Richard/Rahl comparison, simply because the comic and all the characters have drifted a hell of a long ways from those first batches of strips. Even if Richard's ultraviolent acts started as a parody of Big ****, I'd argue that now it's simply because Richard performs ultraviolent acts. It's what he does.

EDIT: VVV Why must everyone on the internet be able to phrase concepts twice as succinctly and eight times as clearly as me?

[averagejoe]

For someone to successfully be a parody/satire of Mary Sues, one needs to make this fact obvious instead of, you know, playing it straight the entire time and expecting the audience to pick up on this fact with no real concrete evidence. It doesn't matter if he's an intended parody of a Mary Sue if everyone who reads it thinks he is a regular Mary Sue.

[Indon]

Black Mage's evil does not become less of a running gag as his comic goes on. Why is Richard's?

Also, the fork was mentioned recently. In fact, that would be what I would argue Richard's actual character development has been - accumulation of running or one-off joke references that work unintentionally to develop the character over time. It's clear Richard's character is still the character he was when the comic started - he just has more stuff.

Edit:

It doesn't matter if he's an intended parody of a Mary Sue if everyone who reads it thinks he is a regular Mary Sue.

Not everyone has to get a joke for it to be funny.

[Drakyn]

Black mage's evil works because he's only competent about half the time and the universe hates him. An evil perfect guy is actually MORE annoying than a heroic perfect guy, mostly because they don't have to try to be anything other than gigantic twerps.
I do not dispute Richard being the main font of violence-related humor, nor the relevance of his fork. What I'm not so sure on is whether that was anything other than a reference-making joke that's occasionally used as a callback, as opposed to an elaborate scheme to build him up as a parody of Big ****. There just doesn't seem to be enough similarity in means, attitude, or acts. Richard blows stuff up, Big **** goes into screaming frenzies with some sort of slicy implement. Richard kills things because it's fun, Big **** kills things because they had the incredible gall to be strawmen and on the same planet as him. Richard follows around people because they give him the chance to kill things, Big **** drags the plot around by his crotch.

EDIT: Ah, here's a comparison I knew existed somewhere on the interwebs. A definite parody of Big **** Rahl: http://www.brunothebandit.com/d/20040628.html

[Indon]

Black mage's evil works because he's only competent about half the time and the universe hates him. An evil perfect guy is actually MORE annoying than a heroic perfect guy, mostly because they don't have to try to be anything other than gigantic twerps.

I think this is where we differ.

You see, you think that, because Black Mage has flaws, that he's in some way a 'real' character. I disagree. I think BM is precisely as one-dimensional and gimmicky as Richard is - BM's single dimension just happens to include just about total impotence (entendre lawls), while Richard's doesn't.

Both are intentionally flat comic relief characters. BM loves evil for the sake of evil, Richard loves evil for aesthetic reasons. BM ruled hell and seeks the unmaking of the universe, Richard is a mayor and seeks to explode more things. BM fails constantly, Richard loves singing thinly-veiled disney parodies. Neither will ever develop in any appreciable sense nor will they be interesting outside their humor-gimmick.

I see no reason why someone would like one of the two (or, for that matter, any main character in 8-bit theater, as they are all static and flat) and dislike the other, other than perhaps that much of Richard is stolen from BM's 'character'.

Richard does not need 'building' to be a parody of Richard Rahl, or for any aspect of the character. He does not need 'building' for anything. That's not the kind of character he is.

[Drakyn]

I think this is where we differ.

You see, you think that, because Black Mage has flaws, that he's in some way a 'real' character. I disagree. I think BM is precisely as one-dimensional and gimmicky as Richard is - BM's single dimension just happens to include just about total impotence (entendre lawls), while Richard's doesn't.

Both are intentionally flat comic relief characters. BM loves evil for the sake of evil, Richard loves evil for aesthetic reasons. BM ruled hell and seeks the unmaking of the universe, Richard is a mayor and seeks to explode more things. BM fails constantly, Richard loves singing thinly-veiled disney parodies. Neither will ever develop in any appreciable sense nor will they be interesting outside their humor-gimmick.

I see no reason why someone would like one of the two (or, for that matter, any main character in 8-bit theater, as they are all static and flat) and dislike the other, other than perhaps that much of Richard is stolen from BM's 'character'.

Richard does not need 'building' to be a parody of Richard Rahl, or for any aspect of the character. He does not need 'building' for anything. That's not the kind of character he is.

Oh, I don't think that Black Mage is more real, although a flawed character is certainly more "realistic" than a perfect one, given how many of each you're liable to meet over your life (though a person as flawed as Black Mage is just as unrealistic in his own right). I'm not saying that he's more real, just that he's much less obnoxious. Single-mindedly jerkish characters getting what they want is seldom as entertaining as watching them got shot down in flames

I also agree that Richard doesn't need any sort of character building or even more than a third of an average dimension to portray a parody of Big **** Rahl. What I think he needs there is some sort of actual resemblence beyond a first name (given for the best omnicidal nickname ever), a reference joke, and the propensity to kill loads of things (one shared by every other character in the comic).

And as a third agreement, I also agree that he doesn't need to have some sort of solid, ground-to-a-fine-polish backstory to fulfill a role as comic destruction, because as both Black Mage AND Richard have demonstrated, sometimes one joke can carry you a long ways. I disagree with none of these facts. I just think he's too far over the top and an author's pet - OOTS fanfiction by Belkar, if you will. The character's problem isn't that he's two-dimensional, it's that he's too damned powerful and you can practically hear Sohmer squeal with delight every time he pens a line for him.
This is all more subjective, naturally; one person's "that (*#$(*@#$head can get away with anything he wants anytime" is another's "wow, he got away with it because he's that awesome." Still, even if I'm overdoing it, I'm fairly certain that at the very least Richard gets a lot more leeway than he should.

[Jibar]

Not everyone has to get a joke for it to be funny.

Yes in terms of parody. If people do not recognise it as a parody and see the humour inherent in the concept you're not parodying, you're just making another example of what you're attempting to parody.

Like this chicken.



This is a parody of a chicken.

But of course it's not a parody of a chicken, it is in fact just a chicken because it has not been defined in any fashion as imitating chickens in a humorous fashion. It is just a chicken.

[Indon]

This is all more subjective, naturally; one person's "that (*#$(*@#$head can get away with anything he wants anytime" is another's "wow, he got away with it because he's that awesome." Still, even if I'm overdoing it, I'm fairly certain that at the very least Richard gets a lot more leeway than he should.

BM gets away with all sorts of evil - just not his ultimate goals (which tend to be much larger in scale and/or killing the other party members).

When BM performs the same, more mundane evils that Richard gets away with, they have similar success rates. Neither comic author is particularly concerned about the law or something succeeding against the murderous comedy relief.

Would Richard be funnier if he talked about failing to unmake the universe all the time, or just more pathetic (and thus funny in a different sense)?

Yes in terms of parody. If people do not recognise it as a parody and see the humour inherent in the concept you're not parodying, you're just making another example of what you're attempting to parody.

You're wrong.

A depressing hero named Elric is still a parody even if, being unaware of the source material, people take him at face value.

Venture Bros. is still a parody of Johnny Quest even if someone has never heard of it.

Harvey Birdman: Atty. at Law is still a parody of Hanna Barbera cartoons even if someone has never seen them (and the cartoons are, obviously, often characterized identically to the source material being parodied - which is a critical part of the parody).

A joke that someone does not get is not a nonjoke - your chicken is very much not an applicable chicken (unless the chicken actually is a joke, anyway).

[Drakyn]

I think we need to establish in what way Richard IS a parody of a mary sue then. Because cracking jokes doesn't necessarily qualify him for this. All I can think of is that the main plot of the story doesn't completely revolve around his goals - he just has a very large impact on it.

[Indon]

Plot-wise, he basically does nothing when he's not solo. He's the party's living phlebotinum, not so much a plot character.

Now, admittedly, when he is solo, he does do things, and maybe in the very distant future he might play a more active part in the plot (or at least, we'll have more undead to make disembodied-bodypart jokes with). Is your major beef about the times when he's separated from the party?