Who is more evil ? Xykon or Richard ?

[Sigbru]

Xykon or Richard (http://www.lfgcomic.com/page/1) ? they are both undead and have similar behaviors, but who do you think is more evil ?

[Morty]

Xykon. He's serious in his evilness and plans in advance, he also shows cruel behavior outside killing everything that moves. He's both more evil and better written character.

[shakes019]

I think Richard is more similar to Belkar than he is to Xykon.

[sihnfahl]

Xykon or Richard (http://www.lfgcomic.com/page/1) ? they are both undead and have similar behaviors, but who do you think is more evil ?
Xykon.

Xykon kills his own minions to stop them from rebelling, but turns them undead so he can still get use out of them. He kills people 'just because they have something I want'. He binds people and creatures to him because he wants to use their power.

Richard... kills randomly because it amuses him (or he's just plain bored, or exasperated...). He doesn't do anything with the folks he kills, except turn them into pieces of grisly artwork. Well, except for Cale, but that's only because Richard wants to play with Cale's mind, which he finds FAR more fun...

Xykon actually seems to have a plan and uses evil methods to get them done. Richard's... pretty much just an ass.

[skyclad]

Black Mage :D

[Green Bean]

I'd say Xykon. There's something about him that makes people hate him. He's ignorant, jerkish, and crude, but you can't do anything about it because he's so freaking powerful. The epitome of this was

(SoD spoilers)
The butch and the b---- speech. Seriously, the evil part of it was chilling, but the most amazing part was how crude it was. C'mon, 'The Butch'? He sounds like an arrogant high-schooler. You just want to wipe the smugness right off his skully face. And, you can't, because he's just too strong.

And it's frustrating that he can get away with being so arrogant and ignorant, simply because of his unearned power. Xykon's so evil, he doesn't even have to try and make you hate him

Richard's an evil guy, sure, but he tries too hard. I've gotta call this in favour of the big X.

[Kreistor]

Richard has the higher body count. Xykon has the higher "quality kill" count.

[Kurald Galain]

Black Mage :D

QFTdoken!!

[Tengu]

Xykon is much more amusing than Black Mage - therefore, he wins with Richard by default, since Richard is a Black Mage knockoff.

[Admiral_Kelly]

@Tengu: Um, no.

If you examine Richard's and Black Mages's personalities you will see they are very much different. BM is more angsty and irritable. Richard hardly ever looses his cool. BM kills people because he is mad, irritable, or bored. Richard kills out of fun. Richard has a talent for sadistic humor that BM lacks. Also, Richard can act more child-like than BM.

[Elfanatic]

Xykon is much more amusing than Black Mage - therefore, he wins with Richard by default, since Richard is a Black Mage knockoff.

Are both Black Mage and Richard evil and powerful wizards? Yes. But I don't think that Richard is simply a knockoff of Black Mage.

First of all, Richard is not dedicated to the evil cause. He does it because it amuses him. Sure, Black Mage gets a cackle of mutilating families too, but the Blue Clown of Doom has dreams of ruling and/or destroying all of creation. When has Richard shared that same goal?

Secondly, they have different ways of combat. Black Mage is the heavy artillery, and something gets into a rage and stabs everyone everywhere. Richard however has Necro-Fu skills, and will only rarely stand back.

Thirdly, he doesn't hate his companions. He will make fun of them, annoy them and shock them, but never did he planned or plotted their deaths. True, Looking For Group is different than 8-Bit Theater in the aspect that the 'heroes' come from races most consider evil. So his compatriots might be used to undead annoyances.

[Kai Maera]

Now I don't know if I'm reading this incorrectly or what, but I believe I've heard read some five or so responses that said Xykon is more evil because he plans things and kills people who have what he wants, while Richard kills because it amuses him.


:smallconfused: The last time I looked, it was random killing that was considered more evil. Whereas killing people who have what you want or killing insubordinate subordinates is actually a military strategy in the modern world. Now raising their negative energy-powered husks to undeath, that is evil.

Xykon is relatively nice compared to most villains and that's what, to me, makes him more sinister - you never know when he will be evil - while Richard is evil all the time.

[sihnfahl]

Now I don't know if I'm reading this incorrectly or what, but I believe I've heard read some five or so responses that said Xykon is more evil because he plans things and kills people who have what he wants, while Richard kills because it amuses him.

Who is more evil? The person who could get something through fair negotiations (and accepting no as an answer) but takes it by force, or the person who uses force just because 'I felt like it'.

The greater evil is having a higher path available, but opting instead for the lower one.


Whereas killing people who have what you want or killing insubordinate subordinates is actually a military strategy in the modern world. Now raising their negative energy-powered husks to undeath, that is evil.

Xykon killed his subordinates because they wanted better terms. He could have negotiated something not quite what they wanted, but still enough to satisfy them both. Instead, though, he chose the path of killing them and raising them as undead.


Xykon is relatively nice compared to most villains and that's what, to me, makes him more sinister - you never know when he will be evil - while Richard is evil all the time.

No, Xykon is evil all the time. He commands through fear, intimidation, and sometimes outright force.

[Admiral_Kelly]

The greater evil is having a higher path available, but opting instead for the lower one.And on that note Richard could just leave the poor civillions alone and find some other way to entertain himself.

Really, that argument puts them as equals more than anything else.

[Kaelaroth]

Who cares? They're both HYSTERICAL! :smallbiggrin:

[Kai Maera]

Who is more evil? The person who could get something through fair negotiations (and accepting no as an answer) but takes it by force, or the person who uses force just because 'I felt like it'.
Excuse my inexperience with quotes.
The person who is most evil is the one who kills people for the sheer fun of it. Simple. Killing with a reason is not as evil as killing without a reason. Period. Think of a real example to the contrary so I can poorly quote it and respond derisively with poor grammar.


Who cares? They're both HYSTERICAL!

That's precisely my point! Even though Xykon is an evil mastermind he's still funny in a genuine way (He accepted an evil sidekick application mid battle!) - whereas Richard seems to gravitate more toward the ironic kind of funny (Ha! They kept saying hail, so he made deadly hail fall from the sky!)

Which brings up something else: Xykon intimidates people through actions, not threats. He is very calm and involved in other things most of the time to be truly heinous. Redcloak is more evil than Xykon for attempting to kill an accepted ally with real utility - and I think everyone's seen enough threads about Redcloak and his evil rating, so I'm just using him as a comparison.

[sihnfahl]

Think of a real example to the contrary so I can poorly quote it and respond derisively with poor grammar.
To which I'd quote accurately, point out your grammar flaws, and dismiss you as a troll.

[Tamburlaine]

personally, I feel both are (in terms of their personality) equally evil, Xykon simply puts more effort and intelligence into his nefariousness.
Also, as previously mentioned, both are hysterical!

[Sly Reference]

Excuse my inexperience with quotes.
The person who is most evil is the one who kills people for the sheer fun of it. Simple. Killing with a reason is not as evil as killing without a reason. Period. Think of a real example to the contrary so I can poorly quote it and respond derisively with poor grammar.

Hitler had a reason. Stalin had a reason. Pol Pot had a reason. Mao had a reason. The deaths that they caused made them the benchmark for evil in the 20th century.

Compare them to Charles Manson, John Wayne Gacy and Jeffrey Dahmer. Which of these is more evil than Hitler? Or Stalin?

Killing without reason means you're a craftsman who will always be personally involved in the kill. Killing for a reason means that you can make it impersonal, and can kill on an industrial scale.

[Kenbert]

Killing without reason means you're a craftsman who will always be personally involved in the kill. Killing for a reason means that you can make it impersonal, and can kill on an industrial scale.

Bravo! When one commits an evil act to achieve an evil goal ... it makes it worse, not better. Both Richard and Xykon do just that. One has a goal which is more ... grand ... and the other's goal is entertainment at the expense of others.

[Kai Maera]

Hitler had a reason. Stalin had a reason. Pol Pot had a reason. Mao had a reason. The deaths that they caused made them the benchmark for evil in the 20th century.

Compare them to Charles Manson, John Wayne Gacy and Jeffrey Dahmer. Which of these is more evil than Hitler? Or Stalin?

Killing without reason means you're a craftsman who will always be personally involved in the kill. Killing for a reason means that you can make it impersonal, and can kill on an industrial scale.

Let's see here... who does no one ever say when they list mass murderers? Saddam. But no one cares that he killed some 12 million of his own people.

Anyway, the last time I looked killing without a reason meant you were never involved with the people you killed. As in you killed them randomly.
While it takes a lot of work to get to the point where planned killing becomes impersonal - you need lackeys following lackeys or you're still ordering people to kill others, which is personal.

Richard kills because it amuses him. Xykon kills because people are in his way. Richard does not get to know anyone and is more than likely to shove a dagger in their face before he does, while Xykon has clearly restrained himself from killing at least the PCs, and things have gotten semi-personal with them (if he could ever bother to remember their names).

I'm saying that in raw evil power, Richard is the superior one. He's a translucent character whose only want is to kill - as someone pointed out earlier, he's much like Belkar. Oh no, someone just said Belkar is more evil than Xykon!

[Raroy]

Killing mass amount of people for fun isn't evil. It's just chaotic stupid. Evil is hard to explain. It's not just Doing things we see as wrong, its......I really have not much too add except that Mass homicide is not necessarily an evil thing.

[explanetpluto]

Beside which side of the -tagonist fence they're on, they're the same character.

[Kenbert]

I really have not much too add except that Mass homicide is not necessarily an evil thing.

Am I the only one who takes issue with this statement? A complete disregard for intelligent, innocent life not being evil?

[slayerx]

i'd say Xykon is definatly more evil... he's got all the evil-ness of richard and then some. Xykon is not above random killing (like richard); He would kill you just for blocking his view. He's kills minions and innocents alike for little to no reason.

However, the key difference between Xykon and Richard is that Xykon takes the time to consider what would be the most evil thing to do in a situation... For instance, Richard would kill off a man and his wife in an instant; however, Xykon might let the widow live, cause letting her live in grief may be more evil... a few examples... When Miko was trapped in the force cage, Xykon thought it might be more evil to let her live, than to kill her off and turn her undead. After xykon killed off the saphire guard, he purposfully left O-chul alive and helpless so that he could witness him turning his dead comrades into undead servents, starting with the women. Richard in both cases, would have just killed them.

Richard just kills lots of poeple... Xykon not only kills lots of poeple, but also makes them suffer. Unlike Richard, Xykon knows that there are fates worst than death, and he will make use of them.

[Kenbert]

i'd say Xykon is definatly more evil... he's got all the evil-ness of richard and then some. Xykon is not above random killing (like richard); He would kill you just for blocking his view. He's kills minions and innocents alike for little to no reason.

However, the key difference between Xykon and Richard is that Xykon takes the time to consider what would be the most evil thing to do in a situation... For instance, Richard would kill off a man and his wife in an instant; however, Xykon might let the widow live, cause letting her live in grief may be more evil...

To quote Richard in the "Slaughter the World" video ... "You see a wife ... I see a widow."

[Setra]

It's hard to compare.

Richard lives simply to cause pain to others, that's pretty damn evil.

However Xykon has killed countless himself, all for his grand scheme of whatever.

Not to mention he kills even people on his side, which makes him 'slightly' more evil than Richard, who has no one 'on his side' to kill.

And don't try to make an argument that the 'group' in LFG, is on Richard's side. Do you REALLY think they're so much on his side as, well, pretty much just using him and hoping he doesn't kill them.

[hanzo66]

Richard just treats his evil as a joke and is more lighthearted about it.



Xykon, while usually being crass and brutish with very little subtlety (believing in force and style over tactics) has a penchant for intelligent cruelty that is due to lichification (which makes him smarter than he was as a human) and losing his sense of taste, forever being separated from his one true love... Coffee.


Richard more or less just prefers being a pest to his comrades (who just regard him as such), whom he sticks around as a whim. Xykon's minions merely fear him and Redcloak...
Sticks with him out of mostly his Plan and guilt for his actions.


Xykon would ultimately be more evil as far as quality goes. Richard is just at nature a fun-loving jerk.

[slayerx]

To quote Richard in the "Slaughter the World" video ... "You see a wife ... I see a widow."
And then Richard goes and kills the widow... illustrating my point... it might have been more evil to let her live in grief, than to kill her

[Kenbert]

Does he? I thought he just tossed the head to her and left ...

[LM TR]

Black Mage :D

hey, that was my idea! :smallyuk:

[Binary Stars]

I would have to go with Richard, which seems like the less popular opinion on these boards. Xykon really does have the potential to be as, if not more, evil than our favorite "Lord of the 13 Hells", but he never has.

Xykon is just an indifferent power seeker. He uses whatever methods of destruction he can to obtain power and kills his employees for fun since he's above retribution. But should he meet somebody who has the upper hand, like when he was reduced to a soul, he is to not much more than a whiney suck-up. When Richard gets immobilized, he really just seems indifferent. Xykon executes his random lackys, very evil, but he has a lot of those and he has the power to eliminate them, plus turning them into undead is a matter of not wnating to feed them, let them rest or comply with their demands. He's undoubtably done incredibly evil things, like letting O'Chul think he could destroy the throne was evil or using that trap on Roy, but a different kind then Richard's. The pinnacle of his evil was probably using the symbol of insanity to eliminate the paladins. That was sadistic.

However, Richard does things like that regularly, and takes an almost child-like glee with destroying his enemies and tormenting them. Xykon uses destruction to obtain power, but Richard just does it for the sake of watching people feel bad. While Xykon goes for the efficiency of a Disintagrate, or if he wants to immobilize them, some kind of symbol of pain. Richard, on the other hand, has disintigrated people, but more often he uses underhanded methods when he could just zap them. So far he has made the "pure and innocent" Cale shoot an old man, then laughed as man's son showed up and cried, before doing something that caused him to flee in a later panel shows while holding his... rear end, evaporated Cale for calling him ****, before putting a bug in the sack of dust to see if he'd come back to life as a horrible bug monster. Possibly eaten babies before, too, plus burned an orphanage, even used vantriloquism to make an innocent ogre get all but disemboweled, and uses the most brutal methods and went so far as to kill a group of people by making their skeletons rip their own skin off themselves, we've seem him dance with a corpse while its widow cried, etc. etc. He even kicked and squashed a puppy, and made a kitten's head explode. :smalleek: Okay, so I guess we don't need to list every offense like a criminal rap-sheet.

The point is, good old "Lord of the Black" just plain enjoys letting others think he just may not kill them, before decimating most of a village and watching the rest grieve. Xykon is evil, and gets enjoyment from evil acts, but not on the scale of Richard. Xykon is a conquerer, while Richard is like a sane psychopath. I wouldn't say that a cruel dictator is less vile than a murderer, but, heck, even the greatest leaders have killed people in war. :smallfrown:

[Querzis]

Hitler had a reason. Stalin had a reason. Pol Pot had a reason. Mao had a reason. The deaths that they caused made them the benchmark for evil in the 20th century.

Compare them to Charles Manson, John Wayne Gacy and Jeffrey Dahmer. Which of these is more evil than Hitler? Or Stalin?

Killing without reason means you're a craftsman who will always be personally involved in the kill. Killing for a reason means that you can make it impersonal, and can kill on an industrial scale.

OK then, I'll say Charles Manson was more evil then Hitler...If Charles Manson would have had an army of the size of Hitler, he would have exterminated everyone in Europe before starting to kill his own soldiers for the heck of it. Charles Manson a was single man, Hitler was the ruler of one of the greatest army of all time, of course Hitler did more damage but that doesnt make him more evil. Hell, even a ruler of a big nation who is a good guy would kill more people then Charles Manson just by doing a little mistake in a war.

Anyway, both Richard and Xykon are at the top of evil, two people killing for fun. And Yes Xykon also kill for fun, hes no better then Richard. Except Charles Manson and some insane peoples like him, we barely ever saw that in the real world. No Hitler didnt actually enjoyed it, he considered it his duty and wanted the perfect race to rule the world. Crazy bastard like Xykon and Richard cant possibly be more evil then they are right now. Even Black mage isnt as evil, he do those things out of anger and spite.

[slayerx]

Does he? I thought he just tossed the head to her and left ...

ah, no your right, i was thinking about the other poeple greiving who he threw a flaming rock at...
Still, when it comes down to it, Xykon is far better at making poeple suffer

[Sly Reference]

Let's see here... who does no one ever say when they list mass murderers? Saddam. But no one cares that he killed some 12 million of his own people.

And I didn't mention Idi Amin, either, or a number of other tyrants. I thought four was a long enough list.


Anyway, the last time I looked killing without a reason meant you were never involved with the people you killed. As in you killed them randomly.
While it takes a lot of work to get to the point where planned killing becomes impersonal - you need lackeys following lackeys or you're still ordering people to kill others, which is personal.

If you've ever read any of the true crime books out there, you would realize that most serial killers are actually quite involved with their victims. They choose people because they have some feature that acts as a trigger, burrowing into the psychotic individual's psyche, and not letting go until the victim dies. Victims are usually not random, at least from the killer's point of view.

But you also misunderstood what I was saying. A serial killer is, by and large, the person with his hand on the knife, with his finger on the trigger, or his fingers wrapped around the throat. He is personally killing his victims, one by one, taking a dark secret pleasure from watching them die. Ordering others to do it means you are just happy with the idea of them dying, like exterminating bugs.


OK then, I'll say Charles Manson was more evil then Hitler...If Charles Manson would have had an army of the size of Hitler, he would have exterminated everyone in Europe before starting to kill his own soldiers for the heck of it. Charles Manson a was single man, Hitler was the ruler of one of the greatest army of all time, of course Hitler did more damage but that doesnt make him more evil. Hell, even a ruler of a big nation who is a good guy would kill more people then Charles Manson just by doing a little mistake in a war.

Charles Manson did have his own army -- the Manson Family. But he was such a small evil that he could only corrupt a dozen or so souls into following his lead, and even then there were only, what, five who would kill for him? And Manson didn't do a thing himself -- the poor weak fool ran away just before the action started. There are killers out there far more evil than old Charlie.

[Ancalagon]

Richard is just randomly, mindless violent. It's like a 15-year-old-roleplayers dream of "the evil, powerful sorcerer, that shows everyone who the boss is". Just random violence without *anything* behind it not funny in the long run (and only moderatly funny for the first two times).

Comparing Richard to Belkar would make more sense but where Belkar is a funnythat is actually a *charakter*, Richard is just "SLAUGHTER!". His punchlines are also pretty weak compared to Belkar's and pretty cheap (it is like kill, kill, slaughter. "He look, I slaughtered all of them! HAHA!).

The characters (especially Richard) on LFG are so flat that you do not even spot them when you try to compare them with what oots is doing. Ok, you could defend lfg since it only has some 50 comics and oots had a longer time to build up something, but, well, 50 comics and Richard still being totally flat does not indicate good storytelling, it is more the "generic quest of a group of adventurers", featureing "Richard, the mad, over-sorcerer who makes up for the weakness of his player)", Mike (15), "That orcish chick with litlle clothes (Boobies!)", played by Bob (15) and... well, maybe it will develop, but until now I'd file it under "generic".

Erm... long answer short: Xykon. He is actually evil. Richard is "chaothic mindless". Violence needs a purpose and that makes Richard "evil" while Xykon is "EVIL". :)

[Belkar Rocks]

Aw, darn it. I was hoping you meant Richard Nixon. :smallmad:

[Kai Maera]

Aw, darn it. I was hoping you meant Richard Nixon. :smallmad:

THAT would be a hard one to choose.

[Flubadubdub]

Richard goes around killing freely for pleasure

Xykon kills people to further his goal of becoming all powerful so he can kill freely unchallenged.

So who's more evil?

Neither, both have no care for the lives of others whatsoever. Both know the harm they are causing people in their life. Xykon I'm afraid is just that much better at doing it.

[SPoD]

The pinnacle of his evil was probably using the symbol of insanity to eliminate the paladins. That was sadistic.

This says to me that you haven't read Start of Darkness yet. Xykon does more evil things in the first few pages of that book than the symbol of insanity trick, and ends the book with the most evil, manipulative, gut-wrenching, kick-to-the-nuts ever.

Xykon is far more evil, simply because he is willing to delay the immediate evil gratification of killing someone in order to enact more twisted and evil fates on them later. (Yes, this is more obvious in SoD than in the online strip.)

[Ancalagon]

Richard goes around killing freely for pleasure

Xykon kills people to further his goal of becoming all powerful so he can kill freely unchallenged.

So who's more evil?

Neither, both have no care for the lives of others whatsoever. Both know the harm they are causing people in their life. Xykon I'm afraid is just that much better at doing it.

Well, Xykon also kills for fun and because he wants to? Regarding that, he is not different from Richard. The thing is, Xykon also does other stuff for a reason, he's not limited to "killing for fun".

[Zerkai]

:smallsigh: ... Most of you have not viewed into at least one of either character deeply enough.

Xykon, people say is serious? He would rather watch a dating show marathon then make plans for his great purpose for which he kills. He has humorous moments("O guy I killed, the ground, the round, is calling'). He himself can be indifferent to being injured and damaged himself. Instead of fighting that soon back after having his skull driven by Soon, he laid there, saying goodby to Reedcloak, until a certain pstcho we all know and love(Maybe not) blew up the gate, and he took the chance to flee.

Richard, he does not mindlessly kill, it isn't KILL! KILL! KILL! with him. He takes sheer pleasure in the chaos, is in love with the scent of decaying corpses and blood, the sounds of people screaming in pain, the cries of mercy, the sight of decimation. He revels in it all. A true example of evil in it's very work. He kills because he wants to, and the death of torment of others makes him all tingly inside.

Xykon isn't that serious, Richard isn't mindless. Both are powerful undead spell casters that would love to see the world kneel before them, then kill a few for fun (Richard maybe more so). They aren't so different. Richard is indifferent to the laws, as long as he gets to kill, maybe mid chaotic/Nuretal Evil. Now Xykon I can't say is Lawful evil, but close. They are both different aspects of Evil.

They both kill for fun, kill to get the point across, and kill to further their own purposes.

[Ghantul]

Richard, he does not mindlessly kill, it isn't KILL! KILL! KILL! with him. He takes sheer pleasure in the chaos, is in love with the scent of decaying corpses and blood, the sounds of people screaming in pain, the cries of mercy, the sight of decimation.


Now that sounds like Belkar

[....]

Let's see here... who does no one ever say when they list mass murderers? Saddam. But no one cares that he killed some 12 million of his own people.

...Xykon has clearly restrained himself from killing at least the PCs, and things have gotten semi-personal with them (if he could ever bother to remember their names).

Uh, whats not mentioning Saddam have to do with anything at all?

And when has Xykon restrained himself? He's fought the OOTS once.

During that fight Roy punched his head off and threw him into the gate, destroying the body. Xykon was playing with them, yes, but he had every intention of killing them once he got bored. He didn't know shattering Roy's sword would have that effect.

The only other time Xykon faced any of the PCs was when he fought Roy on the dragon.

In case you hadn't noticed, Roy is dead.

[Kai Maera]

Uh, whats not mentioning Saddam have to do with anything at all?

And when has Xykon restrained himself? He's fought the OOTS once.

During that fight Roy punched his head off and threw him into the gate, destroying the body. Xykon was playing with them, yes, but he had every intention of killing them once he got bored. He didn't know shattering Roy's sword would have that effect.

The only other time Xykon faced any of the PCs was when he fought Roy on the dragon.

In case you hadn't noticed, Roy is dead.

Saddam did not kill from a personal agenda or to weed out opponents. He killed for the fear it would generate. He did not watch Tivo, play around with a hideous monster hidden in darkness, or sit out in the open where everyone could attack him with their flaming +5 swords.

A tyrant, but a chaotic one.

Anyway, more to the point, comparing Richard to Richard Nixon and Belkar is rather interesting, except Nixon offhandedly had a bit of Xykon's "throw the battle fodder at them" added in. And that battle fodder was people with families, lovers, and hopes.

So I guess you could say that Xykon's evil is more poignant, but it is few and far between compared to what Richard does. It's quality over quantity. But even Richard has his meanstreaks at times - it's just usually at the spur of the moment, without great planning.

No one knows how long Richard has lived, though. I'd assume that several hundred years of genocide is more evil than a bit over a century of planned strikes.

[Querzis]

Xykon isn't that serious, Richard isn't mindless. Both are powerful undead spell casters that would love to see the world kneel before them, then kill a few for fun (Richard maybe more so). They aren't so different. Richard is indifferent to the laws, as long as he gets to kill, maybe mid chaotic/Nuretal Evil. Now Xykon I can't say is Lawful evil, but close. They are both different aspects of Evil.

I followed you until there...what the hell? Xykon and Richard are quite obviously both chaotic evil! How the hell would you think Xykon is Lawfull evil? He has no loyalty whatsoever to anyone, he has no honor, hes unpredictable and above everything else, he does everything on a whim! Lawfull character act out of duty, like its Redcloak duty to sheppard all goblins and kill all humans while chaotic character do what they want, they act because they feel like it and both Richard and Xykon obviously just follow their whims.

[Ancalagon]

If you look up "chaotic evil" you could find a picture of Richard and/or Xykon. They are so CE that is totally useless to talk about something else.

[....]

No one knows how long Richard has lived, though. I'd assume that several hundred years of genocide is more evil than a bit over a century of planned strikes.

I think Xykon's bodycount is higher than Richard's if we let the deaths he cause by proxy to count. How many soldiers in Azure City were killed by the army he raised? Hundereds? A thousand?

Richard couldn't have been an undead warlock for more than maybe 10 years. The Plauge that created the Undead was a very recent development, and the free-willed Forsaken have been around for maybe four years, in Warcraft land, which I assume LFG is part of. How many people could he really have offed in ten years?

[Kai Maera]

Considering Richard killed a town of some 2300 or so in the last strip during the duration of 2 or so hours, I would be willing to bet that his body count is still higher. But more to the point, that comic isn't fleshed out enough yet. Richard could be Forsaken, or he could be good old fashioned undead (caused by another source of power), he could be just about anything really.

Some say it's cheap, others say it's a work in progress.

[Querzis]

Considering Richard killed a town of some 2300 or so in the last strip during the duration of 2 or so hours, I would be willing to bet that his body count is still higher. But more to the point, that comic isn't fleshed out enough yet. Richard could be Forsaken, or he could be good old fashioned undead (caused by another source of power), he could be just about anything really.

Some say it's cheap, others say it's a work in progress.

The authors said it themselves, LFG is not from the warcraft universe. It take some elements from warcraft and others from lots of others fantasy stories. Hell, the last character that was introduced is a bard, you know how many bards in warcraft?

Anyway, I suspect Richard was an undead for quite some time since hes already used to it. Someone that was still alive recently would react or panic when someone cut their hands off or throw a dagger at them while Richard just say «meh» and tend to be actually friendlier with people who attack him for no reasons then people that salute him.

[Ancalagon]

A "higher body-count" does not equal "more evil".

[Agalyon]

Richard is more crazy than evil, where as Xykon is more stupid yet has evil intentions making him worse than Richard.

As for Black Mage, he is a crazy small man with huge emotional problems and incredibly low self esteem. which seems to be why he picks on fighter, the swordiest swordsman in sword world :smallsmile: