I recently started reading about norse mythology, and I couldn't help but think that even the "good" gods such as Odin act in ways that, by modern definitions of morality, would be considered unfair and treacherous by many.
As an example, one of the myths that's striked me the most is Fenrir's. He hadn't done anything that could bring bad consequences to Asgard, but he was tricked into being chained up simply because the gods were afraid of him.
That leads to my question: how were the gods' actions perceived by the people who believed and worshipped them? If Odin disregards justice and fairness, is it alright just because he's Odin? Or could it be that all of this is just catholic propaganda?
I remember my high school history teacher telling the class that in Ancient Greece, it wasn't uncommon for people to curse and question the gods. If that's really true, then can the same be said about Ancient Scandinavia?
As always, any question about "what did believers of Norse mythology think about X" comes with a pretty hefty list of disclaimers:
The mythology that is recorded in the Prose and Poetic Eddas comes to us from thirteenth century Iceland - the Prose Edda is the "definitive edition" of oral poetic traditions by Christian and very rich man Snorri Sturluson, for the explicit purpose of teaching aspiring poets the meters and systems of kennings that make up the complex tradition of skaldic poetry (which does genuinely date to pre-Christian times). He even warns people to not believe any version of the stories told other than his own - he does not believe these stories are true! As a result, the correspondence of "Norse mythology" as it survives to pre-Christian Nordic belief systems is uncertain at best.
I say "belief systems" for a reason. There was no unified religious practice in Northern lands in the Viking Age. It's likely that each chieftancy was its own local religious authority (the Old Norse word goði is used to mean a secular chieftain in Iceland by the 12th century, but likely had a religious component earlier on). This means there is a lot of local and regional variation (and if we focus on the Saami populations who Richard Cole argues have a strong influence on the Prose Edda, there is even more variation). We have extremely little evidence for what this practice looked like and how it relates to the surviving mythology - while some runestones depict Þórr fishing up Miðgarðsormr, indicating continuity with the Eddas, place name evidence suggests that Ullr was an ancient, popular, and widely-venerated god, and no information or stories about him survive at all beyond "he was a good skier."
So, all of that makes it quite difficult to say whether Óðinn was perceived of as ignoble or unjust in the Viking Age. That being said, we're not completely out of luck here. The rest of this answer will give a few different ways of accessing potential attitudes towards the gods, and how slightly later Norse people thought their ancestors interacted with the gods.
There's instances in the surviving mythology that depict Æsir who are gifted in something as either temporarily or permanently disfigured in that same attribute. Óðinn, who is gifted with wisdom and foresight from Mimisbrunni, is missing an eye, and Þórr, most masculine of the gods, has to endure the shame of wearing a bridal veil in Þrymskviða. They are in a quite literal sense imperfect. The reasons for this imperfection are highly mysterious - it has been proposed that temporary breaking down social expectations was a way for a community to re-assert them even stronger. Nevertheless, it does indicate at least a vague willingness to acknowledge the gods as flawed, and construct stories where they are outmatched (Þórr and Útgarða-Loki, in the Prose Edda, is another example of this - Þórr is outmatched at every test and becomes more enraged from it, but at the end the deceit is revealed and Þórr becomes again terrifyingly powerful. Hárbarðsljóð is also an example, as Þórr is humiliated by Óðinn disguised as a ferryman)
In the end of the pre-Christian period, there is perhaps a willingness to fully reject the Æsir in the face of personal trauma. Here, I draw on the poem Sonatorrek (The unbearable loss of sons), found in the thirteenth century Egils saga, but dated on linguistic evidence to the 10th century. Its composer, Egill Skallagrimsson, composed it after his son drowned, frames the death as a quarrel with the gods: "the architect of victory [i.e Óðinn].. broke off his friendship with me" (translation Bernard Scudder). He still believes in Óðinn's might, at least - the rest of the poem details the gifts he received from the god. However, he is still willing to criticize Óðinn for perceived injuries.
It must be said, Sonatorrek is unusual in this regard. Most skaldic poems that survive do not call out the gods. But, if we accept the fornaldarsögur, or Legendary sagas, as being based on pre-Christian oral narratives, something there is a decent amount of evidence for, then there is a stock trope of rejecting the gods and making enemies of them - Hrólfr kraki and Örvar-Oddr both do something of the sort. This may indicate a genuine pre-Christian trend, in which belief in the gods was something that was negotiable, or it may be the result of post-Christianization decrediting of the Æsir.
In the Eddic corpus, the Lokasenna stands out as potentially showing a criticism of the gods. In it, Loki crashes a party of the gods and tells an unflattering verse about each of the gods - he accuses Freyja and Frigg of promiscuity, Bragi of cowardice, etc. This continues until Þórr arrives - he captures Loki, chains him to a rock with the entrails of Loki's non-monstrous sons, and Skaði places a snake above his head. This poem is in the Poetic Edda! Its purpose and reception is unclear, but the possibility is undeniable that it represents a willingness to make fun of the gods for their flaws in a more serious way than the other poems.
To speak on Óðinn specifically, the question becomes whether, in the pre-christian period, he was perceived of as deceitful. I would argue that no, he was not. The fundamental social currency of the time was honor. Holding true to oaths was one such honorable thing, but it is also gained through generosity of gifts and the paying of debts via agreed-upon compensation or, should that fail, by successful acts of violence. Achieving the desired, honorable end via trickery or withholding information is fair play, as long as it becomes declared afterwards! (so, for instance, in Gisla saga, the outlaw-hero Gisli kills his brother-in-law secretly at night in revenge for his brother-in-law killing his sworn brother. This is inherently dishonorable, because family ties matter, but what is just as dishonorable is that he doesn't announce the killing. The law code Grágás also puts the stipulation of announcing a killing in the society, and that is the defining distinction between homicide and murder.) The god is flawed, but he still is powerful, and fills his role as wise warrior-king to the epitome of honor.
1/2