[@Timemaster] RE: Alechior
Strong concept with great personality and writing! One core issue needs addressing: in your roleplay example, Alechior changes a 100-sided die to show "101" after it's rolled. This breaks the fundamental premise of gambling (outcomes are determined by genuine chance within agreed rules). If Alechior can alter results arbitrarily, he's a trickster (Trickery Domain) using games as theater, not a gambling god. Both archetypes work, but you need to choose which one you're playing.

Aside form that, consider what happens when gambling causes real harm (addiction, ruined families). You don't need grim consequences, but some philosophical boundary between playful mischief and cruelty would add depth. Also, clarify whether "making up rules" applies only to games or extends to all social contracts (laws, oaths, agreements)—this affects how other gods will interact with Alechior.

[@Cyclone] RE: Sharhush
Compelling concept. Three structural issues to resolve:

Firstly, Sarhush believes the strong naturally dominate, yet he blesses rulers. Every intervention proves his philosophy wrong—if they needed help, they weren't naturally strong. You could, instead, reframe blessings as tests: "I grant you one advantage; if you cannot turn it into lasting dominion, you were never worthy."

Secondly, Burning every tree and destroying all wilderness doesn't build civilization but causes famine and ecological collapse. Even brutal empires practiced resource management. Change "destroy nature" to "subjugate and exploit nature ruthlessly." This comes off with the same intensity and ruthlessness, but remains functional. After all, a god of Civilization who advocates destroying the natural resources civilization needs is self-contradictory. It's like a god of War who wants all weapons melted down.

Thirdly, right now Sarhush only opposes things (democracy, kindness, nature). Give him a positive vision, like monuments piercing the sky, dynasties spanning millennia, cities so magnificent mortals willingly serve. This makes him ambitious rather than merely spiteful.

[@Legion02] RE: Excelsis
Domain mismatch: Your roleplay shows conquest and ambition (manipulating kings into war), not discovery (uncovering unknown knowledge). Either rename the domain to match your actual concept, or revise the example to show genuine discovery. Additionally, the "God of gods" goal is an interesting touch; seeking supremacy over other deities creates inherent conflict and that is welcomed, however it's not really acknowledged here. I hope you are ready to be seen as an antagonist to both the good as well as bad guys (possibly the only way these two sides would ever come together for), or reframe this ambition as unreachable/tragic.

Lastly, "I stop caring once you burn to ash" undermines long-term worship. Why would mortals serve a god who explicitly discards them post-usefulness? Either add posthumous care (honoring their legacies) or explain how clergy reconcile this. The manipulative elements work as morally gray which is it's fine, so these three issues just need clarity on whether he's meant to be villainous or complex neutral.