more in a down to earth sense, and not in a hippie sense
It was kind of both. The Norse believed in the concept of
Innagard and
Utgard, i.e. "within the fence" and "outside the fence".
Innagard referred to their farmsteads and settlements, 'tamed wilderness', whereas
Utgard referred to the woods, mountains, rivers, etc., 'untamed wilderness'. They revered the
utgard as being the home of the
landvaettir (landwights, nature spirits) that could be malicious or benevolent depending on how they and their territory was treated, so the Norse were careful not to encroach too much and to be respectful of nature.
There's also the concept of "from the gods, to the earth, to us, from us, to the earth, to the gods" (a modern phrase based on historical practice). The gods created the world and everything on it, therefore everything we use out of nature is their gift. Moderation and preservation is, then, important. Returning gifts to the gods via offerings was the reverse of this process; here's some grain I took from the earth, that I am giving back to the earth, to then be accepted by the gods
via the earth; it's believed that most ritualistic offerings occurred outdoors in nature, and offerings would have been consumed by wild animals (mostly birds).
To the point of the thread, "god-king" isn't a concept that would meld well with the Norse religion. The concept of tracing a lineage back to a god was likely based on the belief that
all mankind is descended, conceptually, from the gods, through the act of creation (when Odin and his brothers crafted
Ask and
Embla from the driftwood (oak/ash and elm)). Humility was also something outlined in the
Havamal, a poem that described Odin's views on life, and claiming godhood through kingship isn't very humble. Of course, sources are scarce and disjointed and open to interpretation.
I don't think you'd be able to get a pharoah-esque situation in Norway, but a strong leader with countless successes could be seen as being favoured by the gods, like the mythical heroes of old.
