Undefensive Strategy

Question: So did you strip Baldur of Guardian because you felt the writers gave it to him only because of the spell of protection put on him by Frigg?

We stripped Baldur of Guardian because we couldn't find a single good reason anywhere in Norse mythology for him to have it. He has absolutely zero Guardian connotations; he doesn't protect or guard anyone or anything (including his own damn self), doesn't act as patron or protector of any items or places, and has nothing at all anywhere to suggest that he might be guarding anything in any way. He leads some armies and fights in some wars, and he's beloved and beautiful and shiny, and he stole his wife from his brother that one time, and he likes to play a game called Stand Around While People Throw Lethal Weapons At Me Until I Die until he dies, but that is it. In fact, he's an extraordinarily bad guardian; the one time he actually does anything helpful for anyone, regenerating the world after Ragnarok, he doesn't show up to do it until basically everybody is already dead anyway.

We think that Frigg's super-potent guardian spell on Baldur might be the reason that the original writers of Scion gave Baldur Guardian; at least, it's as good a guess as any, since we can't think of a good explanation otherwise. They might also have just given him Guardian because it's a happy, heroic purview and Baldur seems like a happy, heroic dude. Scion's kind of all over the place about how it models Baldur's invulnerability anyway; it repeats the story about Frigg's spell, but then instead gives him a custom Stamina knack for some reason even though that doesn't make a lot of sense, and then had to randomly allow the plant and sword versions of mistletoe to damage him in spite of the knack with no system explanation, and so on.

It's all pretty baffling, so we ignore it. Baldur has neither Stamina nor Guardian, and his invulnerability from his mother is easiest explained as an example of Frigg using the Entreat Immunity boon.