First of all, I wanted to say that I really enjoyed this HG. I particularly enjoyed how the domain you choose for your god both really changed the “flavor” of your MC and how each of the domains provided you with special abilities for your MC and how this in turn provided different options for your MCs in certain situations, which in turn increased the replay value. With different stats to choose to strengthen or ignore, it meant that I could choose between many different builds for my MC, which increased the replay value even further.
And as someone who have always been really interested in the Norse mythology and myths( and the Greek ones and many others as well), it’s fun to read and play an IF about them and particularly to get the opportunities to change the outcomes of them). It was also interesting to see the interpretations in this HG of the characters of those myths and in some instances also the myths themselves and though the characters were not as deep as what is currently the trend, they were still full of personality, whether that personality hewed closely to their personality in the old myths or was interpreted a bit differently.
One thing, though, that I think would be nice, would have been if you included explanation about what the different stats were used for. While the combat and magic stats seemed kind of intuitive and self-explanatory, it wasn’t always easy to figure out which of the options given that depended on your diplomacy stat and which of them depended on your charm stat. I certainly wasn’t sure about that in my first playthrough, but if I did(from my second playthrough or so) understand it correctly, trying to convince another character of something uses charm(unless it’s dependent on the relationship stat of that character), while trying to calm a character uses diplomacy. Is that a correct interpretation? If so, there still seem to be a few situations where that wasn’t the case, although it may then have had to do with that character’s relationship stat.
Just to jump in the discussion about whether things were predetermined or not in Norse mythology: I think it’s important to keep in mind several things. Firstly that myths are less of monolithic, so to speak, than they often are thought to be, with myths not infrequently disagreeing with one or another or at least offering different interpretations of a particular character or event, such as the different stories of how Aphrodite was born in Greek mythology. Sometimes there may also be myths and other important knnowledge lost, including myths and knowledge that may have provided us with a different picture. Treating Norse myths as monolithic in that way and claiming they only can be told a certain way, as @Herdy seems to do when it comes to Ragnarok and some other myths, seems to me to be a mistake.
Secondly, we view the myths through lenses that have much to do with our own culture and minds, which won’t always align with how the myths were originally intended or viewed by the people telling them or hearing them then.
This is closely connected to my third point, about prophecy. Prophecies can be interpreted both as being about an unchangeable future, that you can do nothing about or as something that can be changed, kind of like warning of what will happen if you don’t do things differently and do we really know whether and, if so, to what extent the Norse people considered the future or, at least prophesised futures, to be unavoidable?
If I understood things correctly, then the Aesir bound Fenris, because he was prophecised to be a threat to them at Ragnarok and if so, this shows that the gods themselves thought that there were ways to avoid that. Of course, in the end that doesn’t help them, if the prophecy turns true(but that isn’t necessarily so easy to know, since unlike the other myths, that IIRC are told as if they’ve already happened, while Ragnarok is told like something that’s going to happen, but hasn’t already happened) but then again, an alternative interpretation, like in this HG, is that this is because they created a self fulfilling prophecy.
The point is, anyway, that Ragnarok, the way it is described in the myths, ends up the way it does in that prophecy, because of certain actions taken by the gods and other important characters before then. I’m not sure about the chronology of those events leading to the events of Ragnarok being the way they are prophesised to be, but if even some of them took place before the gods first learned those prophesies, then certainly the Ragnarok prophecy is more like a description of what will happen because of certain choices made earlier.. And this HG then gives you the chance to explore to what would happen if some of those choices weren’t made and other, better choices were made instead.
And, importantly, the MC is a god not mentioned in the old myths, so this HG can be seen as a somewhat alternative mythology HG, the way there are COGs and (I guess) HGs that are alternative history COGs and HGs, where there is a god that wasn’t a part of the old myths, allowing us to explore what could happen if such a god took part in those myths, including how those myths, including Ragnarok, could change, if that god took part in them. Those myths, including Ragnarok, being how they are, have a lot to do with the gods and other characters in them and how they acted, but if you are changing that cast of characters to include another important character taking place in various important events, the story is no longer the same as the story leading to Ragnarok in old myths, which means that the story, including Ragnarok, can change. And that means that even if the point of Ragnarok ending the way it does in the old myths being predetermined is correct, it’s ultimately not relevant, since introducing another central character means changing the story, including what is predetermined.