What makes an iconic D&D villain?

[Quickleaf]

The Internet is filled with "top 10 d&d villains" blogs; to name a few:
http://www.toplessrobot.com/2009/06/the_10_greatest_dungeons_dragons_end_bosses.php
http://www.d20source.com/2010/03/the-5-most-bad-ass-dnd-villains
http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?510847-Most-Infamous-D-amp-D-Villains

Is it just that they've appeared repeatedly in official supplements? That we encountered them during our earlier gaming years and they burned themselves into our minds as kids? Or is there something in how the likes of Tharzidun, Strahd, and Bargle were designed that makes them iconic (memorable, emblematic of D&D, reviled by players everywhere)?

Do you think it's possible for new villains in D&D modules/supplements to become iconic and what would it take? Or are we stuck to recycling the same big name villains when it comes to modules, books, video games, etc?

 

[Aberzanzorax]

Darwinism?


By that, I mean that there have been hundreds, even thousands of villians over the course of D&D. We remember the best.

I think this is the same phenomenon as "music today is crap" "movies today are crap" "[insert just about anything here] today is crap." There was a lot of bad, e.g. music in the 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s, 90s, and 00s. But what remains...what is still played...what we remember...that's the good stuff. The junk is either forgotten or remembered ironically (Ice, Ice Baby; Mmmm Bop; The Right Stuff) (Flumphs...how I loves me the flumphs).


Of course, this post doesn't answer what about these villians is good, what makes them really pop. But, if you agree with me/if my post is "correct" then it at least shows that there's no reason why we can develop new icons that are just as good as the old ones.

 

[amerigoV]

Strahd is a great one as he has an active role in what happens. The GM can choose his goal (from a number possible) and the goal involve the PCs in some way. He has a tragic history that makes him sympathetic that the PCs/Players get to piece together over time. Great stuff.

Most of all the other D&D villains just happen to by the guy you kill at the end of the module (IMO).

 

[Yora]

Those who most people think are cool. I guess that's pretty much the entire definition.

 

[Tovec]

The best villains seem to have goals and motives. This is true not just for DnD villains but all truly great villains.

Beyond that there is very little that make them long lasting or epic.

They can be hands on, or aloof. They can direct things from the battlefield or from their throne room.
They can be teamed up with legions of minions to back them up, or they can be solo enemies that just won't go away.

But for me the best villains have two basic definitions. First, they have reasons for being bad. It isn't just that the world made them that way, they are evil because they have to or want to be. They have embraced it and just love being evil.

Second, they have actual goals that they can achieve. World domination is usually a little fuzzy and is at best the means to an end. When the villain wants to dominate the world in order to kill all the puppies then they are usually better than the one who wants to dominate the world for fame, glory or money.

Just my two cents.