He's a metaphor for Shiva :O and he's based on a Lovecraftian Elder God, I can guarantee.
No, I really don't think so; you should refrain from guarenteeing it, most especially when you contradict yourself. So, firstly he's a metaphor (make that rather allusion) to Shiva, the destroyer/creator in Hindu religion. But then in the next half of your sentence, you claim him to be connected to a fictional tale. The problem with the former is that Shiva is not, so far as I know, malefic (if I remember right, though I honestly know very little about Hindu religion) that rather belonging to Kali, who is I think an incarnation of Devi, or something to that effect. In no story I ever read does Shiva wish to orchestrate the destruction of the world for his own empowerment. If anything, that would be the demons, the mortal enemies of the Hindu gods. Now, the problem with the Lovecraft allusion is that, while there may be similarities in some regards (I cannot say too much directly, as I do not know those particular tales) there are other similarities with other stories as well. The acts and ways in which Lavos acts can be seen similar to Sauron, especially as he appears in the Akallabeth - whence came my theorizing on the idea of Lavos as a dark lord in the Tolkien tradition of the term. Now, that said, IS he an alllusion to Sauron? Is Lavos' destruction of Zeal analagous to that of the fall of Numenor? Though parallells can be drawn, in truth it is mere coincidence, a retelling of a common theme (which happens time and again when people tell myths; themes are repeated, even amongst those who have no contact with each other.) Likewise I think any Lovecraft inspiration is mere chance, and Lavos is rather a unique thing that happens to bear resemblance to these other beings of legend.
Hadriel wrote:
That's in the Christian Bible, too; the Jewish people would always go "hay d00d gawd isnt looking lets worship false gods n shite lolz!"
And then they got pwn3d in their FACE.
And yet, we're the oldest living culture on the Earth, and the cultures of our foes are all dead or dying. Funny how that works out.
Not only that, but the Israelites were incredibly less advanced than the people about them, whether those of Babylonia and Assyria, Egypt, or even the Caananites who were in near proximity. The sea-people descended Caananites, especially, were iron-age people of quite significant power in the region, the last echo of the turmoils of the end of the Mediterranean Dark Age. These are the people that fought at Troy, a very warlike race. But here came these people, nomads and scattered tribes, out of Egypt, and settled in amongst them, adopting the language of Caanan, but quite unlike the practices of the time, retaining their own God - for the most part, that is. Now, in the days of David and the rise of the kingdoms of Israel and Judah, the Jews were very technologically backward - they did not even know how to use chariots properly, I have heard. Neither could they forge their own weapons of iron, going to the people of Gath and the like to have their plows made into swords. By all accounts, the Israelites, as a very weak power for the most part, should have faded into obscurity in the face of the rise of Assyria and Babylon. But they were invaded, conquered, and survived, in one of the strangest fates in history. Assyria fell, likewise Babylon; Rome came and went; and through it all, the Jews survived, in despite of history's merciless hand. Personally, I think it was their religious insularity that kept them united and unconquerable (showing the strength of religion and ideals over that of technology and weaponry) that effected this, but nonetheless, it is a fascinating thing that goes against most historic reason. I take it as a sign of the existance of God, and that He indeed has a grand plan, but maybe that's just me.
