Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Mouseferatu" data-source="post: 6846280" data-attributes="member: 1288">I have a serious problem with Vecna being a god. I just found him far more interesting when he was a mythic lich who may or may not have survived his "destruction" and the loss of his hand and eye. I think it's boring storytelling to have made so many of the iconic villains into gods. Vecna's more interesting as a mythic lich. Lolth is more interesting as a demon. Tiamat is more interesting as the progenitor, but not necessarily goddess, of chromatic dragons.The fact is, D&D has lots of liches, but none are truly iconic. Vecna, even before his ill-planned divinity, may or may not have still existed. He was a source of legend and the artifacts named after him. Acererak is close, but he's a demi-lich. Azalin is boring, and dwells in the shadow of far more interesting Ravenloft darklords. Szass Tam is... Eh. The fact that he's a lich is frankly secondary to the fact that he's the zulkir (sp?) of necromancy in Thay.At no point, IMO, has D&D successfully built an ongoing and sufficiently broad story around a given lich character to qualify them for the iconic status of a Strahd or a Lord Soth.</blockquote>