The Ontological Argument for the Existence of God

[Angrboda]

I don't believe this is accurate.  As stated, it identifies exclusively those gods that are omnipotent and modally necessary.

A god that is modally necessary, yes, but I'm not sure about omnipotence.

According to this article about the proof, it is the omnipotence which generates the quality of being modally necessary -- you can't have one without the other.

Notice that Malcolm's version of the argument does not turn on the claim that necessary existence is a great-making property. Rather, as we saw above, Malcolm attempts to argue that there are only two possibilities with respect to the existence of an unlimited being: either it is necessary or it is impossible.

http://www.iep.utm.edu/ont-arg/

Chad seems convinced that God is modally necessary in a way that a leprichaun could not be. What that way is, specifically, seems to point toward the characteristics that a god must have in order for the modal ontological argument to apply. He can't simply be modally necessary as an accidental property of his being or else the leprichaun objection holds.