We are discussing God's morality not as a real being, but as a character in a work of fiction. As a character, he is clearly not evil. If you were to drop him into the real world, you could make the argument that he is immoral (or more likely amoral)... but look at the thread title: "True villains in fiction?"; we are clearly dealing with characters from an in-universe perspective. Feel free to start a new thread to discuss God's morality as compared to our universe. I'll happily discuss it there
I disagree that he is clearly not immoral. In the bible we rarely get an omniscient narrator (in the literary sense, I mean), mostly we get narration of people recording events or claiming to relay what God has told them. So the only evidence we get that God defines morality is from *God's own mouth*. Actually, I'm not sure we even get that - I know that in the Bible God claims to be "just" and "merciful", but I'm not sure that should be interpreted as "morality" in the way we mean the word.
There's a difference between an author clearly being a fan of his character's actions, and and author saying: "As author/omniscient narrator, I'm now letting you know what the moral rules of this fictional universe are". In the former case especially I think it's perfectly fair to judge the character's actions for ourselves.
A similar example would be using ancient Greek "heroes" as examples in this thread - the authors at the time didn't consider their actions villainous, but they have several of the traits we now associate with the word "villain". I think things like this are valid for a few reasons:
1. The intention of the author is not absolute. If it was, we'd just have the author tell us the "correct" interpretation of his or her work and then stop analyzing or debating it.
2. What they call "heroic" and we call "villainous" might be referring to the exact same traits, with the only difference being the emotional connotations attached to the word. Therefore calling the character a villain is not contradicting the authors description in any objective way, simply attaching our own subjective judgment to the same description. It seems especially odd to me to insist on authorial intent when it comes to something subjective as morality - if a writer says in narration that a character is "annoying", but I find that character endearing, I don't think that I have to agree that the character is "objectively annoying" to stay in an in-universe discussion. The author described certain traits and then described his or her reaction to those traits; only the traits themselves are canon.
Using the Bible as an example (though I don't want to limit my points to the Bible, it applies to any case of Values Dissonance
), the authors never say: "Here is the official moral framework of this universe", rather they present a universe where a powerful being essentially decides to mandate human behavior, and the authors (usually) apply a positive tone when discussing this being's actions. Therefore I'd argue that it is an objective description of behavior (God telling humans how to behave) accompanied by the author's subjective approval of that behavior. The latter we are free to disagree with while still arguing in-universe.