>>2185
>Make The Exorcist Fall In Love
Haven't read it; is it any good?
>Dresden Files
>In Nomine
Yeah, those check out I suppose.
>>2187
>The Light
Absolutely counts as benevolent, but not sure if they count as capital G God. Isn't that one in particular more like Mankind's collective tulpa raging against the Iron Crown and winning through sheer HOPE power?
>The Fireman
Don't know anything about Twin Peaks; elaborate?
>The Grace
The fact that Doctor Who has a God at all surprises me-what are they like?
>Sugar Swan
I still need someone to explain what the whole thing with Cookie Run is.
>Trench Crusade
What's that?
>>2189
Deliberately doing less than you're capable of for various reasons is fine; looking at the concept of "tzimtzum" in kabbalah God basically withdrew his essence from existence specifically so something "other than God" could exist. A God who actively chooses to not be omniscient/omnipotent would therefore make a certain degree of sense. For example: if God is all knowing, then free will doesn't exist and all existence is just him play-acting to himself. Therefore it would make sense that a benevolent God would NOT be omniscient, or at least actively choose to refrain from exercising that power.
Being actively malicious or making people suffer is where I draw the line, though. If God actively creates demons or "tests" mankind through various forms of suffering, or puts mankind through "lessons" for the sake of "growth", then that's not a benevolent God. A God who smites evil and protects his flock is 100% okay, even if it's against other humans who he would theoretically love just the same. A God who smites unbelievers and curses random people for generations because they didn't eat food the correct way is a cruel and evil God.
>>2190
He counts too; I actually gave (some of) Unsong a read a while back and I'd definitely say that God is something of a good guy there.