Talk:Demons

Everybody, I see the editing wars on whether about whether or not angels were the first demons or if they were demons period. Instead of changing it back and forth between if all demons were humans or if some were angels about we put in a section for speculation. The speculation can show that it was possible that after Lucifer twisted Lilith into the first demon both he and his fellow soldiers were cast into hell where they became demons.

If this works let me knowVoyagersknight 12:35, October 17, 2010 (UTC)

YED
Should we put Yellow-Eyed Demons as a subgroup under Special? We've only seen one YED, so it seems like it ought to be "Special" more than "Type".--68.202.251.151 04:55, October 3, 2012 (UTC)

Is it too late to say yes to this? 173.32.44.80 20:04, June 29, 2013 (UTC)

Red smoke?
As shown in 8X2, Crowley's smoke puff is red....but not because he's a Crossroad demon, as NO other of that type have had red smoke. This is quite peculiar, seeing as Azazel, the strongest demon, still the typical black smoke. -- ImperiexSeed, 2:32 PM, October 11th 2012

Maybe it's because he's the king of Hell? Auditore7 (talk) 18:48, October 11, 2012 (UTC)

Wait....what? Auditore7, please think before you speak (or in your case, type). No, that can be the reason. Azazel was the King of Hell, and yet his smoke color - like [MOST] demons - was black. -- ImperiexSeed, 2:53 PM, October 11th 2012

That's what got me scratching my head about the episode, Imperiex (besides the utter bizarreness of monsters having civilized auctions in the first place instead of just killing each other and swiping the stuff they wanted). It was deliberately done, too; the other demons in this episode still had black as their smoke selves' color, so it couldn't have just been an error, and by now the crew knows the fans well enough to know we're going to analyze the hell out of everything they put on-screen. Couldn't have been because he's King of Hell--Azazel and Lilith both had normal black forms. Couldn't be because he's got red eyes--other crossroad demons are black. And I'm still convinced he's a demon, not a fallen angel-turned-demon or whatever the kids are coming up with these days. So it might be either something from his days as King of the Crossroads (if that's a real title and not just a pompous way of making himself sound cooler) or he himself was altered in some way to make him unique. I'm sure we'll find out eventually.--68.202.251.151 20:04, October 11, 2012 (UTC)

Well yeah, EVEN Azazel's form was the oh typical mundane black cloud. Well, the King of the Crossroads is lower than King of Hell, and still, Azazel has black smoke. Even Alastair - the Grand Torturer - has the same cloud coloring. -- ImperiexSeed, 4:11 PM, October 11th 2012

I personally was expecting yellow eyes because i thought it was the eye colour of the 'king of hell'. But Crowley's red smoke may just be his 'unique' trait, like Azazels yellow eyes and holy water immunity, Samhains monocolour eyes and immunity to iron, Alistair's Massive resistance to ruby's knife, and of course Lilith and Samhain share the white light ability.

So Red smoke may just be 'his thing' but did anyone notice that despite his rank, he is still hurt by holy water? he also fears ruby's knife alot, but holy water? Azazel, Alastair and Lilith had near if not full immunity, i wonder if it to do with Crowley's age? the other mentioned A-listers may be far older, lilith is without a doubt as is samhain.

Princepurple (talk) 22:34, October 12, 2012 (UTC)

I agree, its probably just a uniquie trait. But you pose an interesting question, personally I think its because, at the end of the day, he's still just a crossroads demon. I mean all the others, Azazel, Lilith, Alastair, Samhain were either white eyed or there own class (techniqually Samhain was monocoloured, but he was still half white) while crowley is mearly a powerful crossroads demon. I think its the same as why he can't fight angels, while the others could, why he can't bully all demons into following him (its clear that his hold over them is loose, and they hardly fear him like they did with the others) he's simply a very powerful class two demon.

What really bugs me is how did a four hundered year old crossroad demon become so powerful? I'm assuming it had something to do with his title, King of the Crossroad's, but still he's only four hundered, the next demon up from him (samhain) is atleast thousands of years old as he is on the seals. How does it work? General MGD 109 (talk) 22:53, October 12, 2012 (UTC)

Yes this annoys me, as Samhain is still chained up somewhere in hell but i think he is more powerfull than crowley, sam could only exorcise samhain, but i'd bet crowley is making sure Samhain cannot get out as he would be a major threat, i forgot about his additional moster summoning abilities aswell, seemed abit chaotic though, im not sure if he matches crowley's intellect, hopefully a power struggle will occur between the two, samhain would be more dangerous now that sam cant use his powers.

Princepurple (talk) 23:48, October 12, 2012 (UTC)


 * Princepurple, look. FACTS: Alastair wasn't immune - not at all. He simply found the experience fun. You thought the title of King of Hell has an eye requirement or attachment - the Kings of Hell are not all Yellow-eyed demons, as far as I'm concerened, Azazel is the only one. No, any demon can be the King of Hell so long as they're the highest in the heiricachy. hmmm.... I have to say, I believe it could his 'unique trait', like Samhain's slash of two colors and Alastair's impressive immunity to the Knife. -- ImperiexSeed, 7:52 PM, October 12th 2012


 * I agree Princepurple, I would love to see Crowley Vs Samhain, Samhain would kick into the next century, but the problem is if Samhain did take over, then as he can only leave hell every six hundered years, we would only see him, in shots set in hell, so he and the winchesters would never actually meet. Plus your right, he's probably to chaotic to rule the demons, I mean he did seem to care about control or focusing the chaos, just creating it. Oh well, I hope its resolved in the future. General MGD 109 (talk) 00:02, October 13, 2012 (UTC)


 * Really though, sam and dean have come back several times when not thought possible, with Samhain being a seal, which was broken, now i hope the same rules do not apply, i really hope he gets out so we at least learn more of his powers and hopfully why his eyes look the way they do, but speaking of samhain, did you notice, when he broke through the floor from his release, his smoke was somehow different, it seemed larger, denser and more like a blanket, i know the smoke has changed over time though.


 * But also of note is that crossroad demons such as the one that made a deal with bella, Guy and Crowley's eyes are not the usual red with black pupil, thier totally red, maybe they dropped the old look.
 * 94.0.33.215 02:05, October 13, 2012 (UTC)


 * My mistake, re-watching the episode, I noticed Crowley did infact have black pupils with his red eyes, but still, the girl who made a deal with Bella, and the demon guy were just plain red.
 * Princepurple (talk) 22:06, October 26, 2012 (UTC)


 * But you have to remember that demons don't operate entirely through strength. I mean Brady is only a black eyed demon and yet he's the horsemen's stable boy. Guy is a pretty weak crossroads demon and yet jackson (who displays some pretty impressive telekinetic skill) is his subordinate. Also Meg displays far more abilities that her brother and yet he seems to be her superior as he shoots her, and lets be honest no one lets their subordinates shoot them. So it kind of makes sense that crowley is so powerful because he's intelligent enough to climb his way up the food chain to the point where he;s the right hand of one of the most powerful demons. As for the red smoke, either it's his special trait or he's not a demon. It can't be because he's a crossroads demon as other crossroads demons had black smoke. It could be because he's the king of hell as neither Lilith or Azazel actually used this title and both displayed black smoke. Also it's not suprising crowley's vunerable to holy water as alastair was too and he's much older. Plus he recovered pretty quickly so it kind of makes sense.

Possible retcon for the use of 'Christo'
Seeing as it was used only on a demon that may be focsuing on certain disasters (at least as identified here in the wiki), a possible canonical way to retcon this method of identifying a demon is that it can only be used on demons that cause disasters.

FTWinchester (talk) 03:13, October 25, 2012 (UTC)

It may be stated on this or another Supernatural wiki, that the 'cristo' used to identify demons as shown in seasons 1 episode 4: Phantom traveler, has since been dropped from the series as it would have been too easy to identify demons.

I also thought of this a few times, but although that episode was the first to feature a demon (not counting pilot as it was not known at that time), it should be seen very much as the 'prototype' for later demons, as no other demons like that one have been seen, it's black eyes only affecting the vessals iris, and the way the thin black like swarm of smoke entered through his eyes, when all other demons enter as rhink clouds of smoke that enter orally.

So it can considdered a dropped element and will likely never be seen again.

Princepurple (talk) 22:12, October 26, 2012 (UTC)

I still don't understand why the Christo entry was removed. Yes, the element was later dropped, but it stated so in the entry, so that really shouldn't have been an issue. It still deserves a mention as a simple fact that took place in the series's history. Also, I think attributing it to a "disaster" or "proto-type demon" is a bit of a fan-wank. Monsters and rules constantly change and evolve as the series progresses, so the fact that the demon entered through the eyes or whatever doesn't mean it wasn't one of the demons that have become very prominent in the show.

I think the entry should go back in. Damaijin (talk) 02:57, May 16, 2013 (UTC)

Monocolor-eyed?
Guys, I seriously do not understand why you call Samhain a monocolor-eyed demon. His irises and pupils were differently colored. If anything, monocolor could pertain to any other demon except Samhain, because as I understand the word by parsing it, mono means one and color means color or hue. Therefore, Samhain is the only demon so far that is NOT monocolor-eyed (with the possible exception of some shots of Azazel's). Anybody care to shed some light on this?

FTWinchester (talk) 03:13, October 25, 2012 (UTC)

Ah Samhain is one of my favorite topics, I have always found his eyes and abilities of intrest, his white light ability, apparent immunity to iron, and ability to raise the dead, yet not displaying any teleknasis.

Along with Azazel, his eyes are unique (though the fact that only 2 white eyed demons were shown leads to a possibilty that Azazel, Alastair, Lilith and Samhain are all of the same class. not sure though, but Samhain is still alive.

Princepurple (talk) 22:17, October 26, 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but I really don't think you answered my question.

FTWinchester (talk) 02:38, October 27, 2012 (UTC)

Guys I am still waiting for an explanation on the use of the term 'monocolor-eyed' demon for Samhain. I really want to remove the use of that term as I find it inappropriate. I just don't do it right away because a lot of you here seems to be using that for a while now. FTWinchester (talk) 03:56, November 5, 2012 (UTC)

Um, if you check you will find this error has been fixed, and Samhain has been rechristened the "Multicolour-eyed demon" I talked it over with the admin, shortly after you brought it to my attention, and we both agreed it needed to be changed, and it has, my best guess it was simply an oversight of someone who didn't know what "mono" ment. General MGD 109 (talk) 18:55, November 5, 2012 (UTC)

There is still one photo of Samhain with the description of 'monocolor-eyed'. Anyway, thanks. FTWinchester (talk) 23:21, November 5, 2012 (UTC)

Terribley sorry for the oversight, well its fixed now. General MGD 109 (talk) 19:19, November 6, 2012 (UTC)

White eyed Demons
This is just a curiosity of mine, why are Alastair and Lilith the only pure white eyed demons seen?

There is a good possibility that the other white eyed demons have since been killed as if any were still alive they would surley of helped lilth in breaking the seals, or dethroned Crowley from his position.

I have always thought that Azazel is actually a White eyed demon himself who possibly altered his eyes as king of hell when Lilith could not rule, though i don't know why Alastair, who could leave hell freely like Azazel, would just follow Azazel, and did not help with the plan apart from breaking the first seal.

I think the reason for Crowley's weakness despite his position as kin, may be because he is much younger than the likes of Lilith, Samhain, Alastair and Azazel ( Another almost confirmation of Azazels white eye status is when Ruby placed Azazel and Lilith as 'A listers'), but with all the other higher demons dead, Lucifer in his cage and Samhain also confined, Crowley, although far weaker, was the most powerful demon still free or alive.

I think Samhain, having liliths white light ability, Dead raising, and iron immunity, clearly places him above Crowley, plus he is well over 600 years old at least, I think he is a White eyed demon aswell, but given his unique powers, also gave him his unique eyes.

I think possibly other high demons, perhaps the likes of Abaddon, Belial, Beelzebub, Asteroth, Jezebell, Mephastophiles and such may have been killed by hunters like samual colt, so now there are none left.

Any ideas on this?

Princepurple (talk) 22:32, October 26, 2012 (UTC)

I agree its possible there are other white eyed demons, and they may have been killed by hunters, but I disagree about Azazel changing his eye colour, I don't think thats actually possible, eye colour comes with his biology, my best guess, yellow is the colour above white, and Azazel was a white eyed demon who got elevated. Now onto them, I can confirm that Azazel, Lilith, Alastair and Samhain are a lot older than Crowley. Crowley was alive in the late 1600's so he's under four hundered, Lilith's the first demon, so she's thousands of years old, as Azazel and Alastair are based on biblical demons Azazel (the scapegoat) and Alastor (the False) it stands to reason they are two, while Samhain is also one of the seals, so he must also be in his thousands. Basically Crowley is just an opetunist, who has Sam and Dean to thank for killing or putting out of action all stronger demons, leaving the throne for him. And Samhain's definatly above Crowley, I took his eyes to mean, he's between a white eyed demon and a ordinary demon. General MGD 109 (talk) 23:44, October 26, 2012 (UTC)

Didn't Kirpke himself say during an interview that Lilith is more powerful than Azazel?

Source

FTWinchester (talk) 02:53, October 27, 2012 (UTC)

No just ranks higher, don't forget power doesn't always follow rank, plus I think he might have been wrong, as its clear in season 3 Azazel was the boss, Lilith didn't come into it, till she conqured the other demons. General MGD 109 (talk) 19:29, November 6, 2012 (UTC)

[Ignoring the fact that Kirpke's word is law] Azazel was boss, no questions about that. But do you think it would actually be the same scenario if Lilith wasn't imprisoned deep in hell? She just wasn't immediately the boss simply because she's missing in action. Much like how Lucifer did not come into the picture until Season 5. Lilith was the alpha demon--it's almost like her birthright (the only reason she was described as 'the new leader rising' is because other lower level demons wanted their fare share of glory as well). That's why Lucifer wants her released, not only because she is the last seal, but also because she is the one powerful enough to break most of the seals (which the story implied she actually did).

It doesn't make sense for demons to break pattern--(arch)angels have it, vampires more often than not do as well, Eve and the Leviathans, too--that is, ancient age is might. FTWinchester (talk) 05:41, November 7, 2012 (UTC)

Purging of this Page
Why are the horsemen included here? The acheri and the daeva, I get--as they are actual legit demons (albeit special kinds of their own). However, the horsemen are clearly not, even in the slightest sense, demons. FTWinchester (talk) 23:55, December 1, 2012 (UTC)
 * --Round-of-applause-- Bravo, you recognize the difference between demons and the Four Horsemen. JK, don't take that offensively. I added them a long time ago because they were fundamentally tools and implement of the Apocalypse, of which Lucifer used--see the correlation? -- ImperiexSeed, 6:59 PM, December 1st 2012


 * I could go on to suggest all of Lucifer's implements should probably go together on a separate page, but there seems to be no qualm about all of them on the demons page. Thanks for answering my query. FTWinchester (talk) 01:00, December 2, 2012 (UTC)


 * As a whole another page, you mean? Well to suite that purpose, it'd be excessively unneeded--I myself am not going to permit a page be created to describe the philosophical and figurative value of the Four Horsemen. We do have a page detailing the Four Horsemen, though. -- ImperiexSeed, 8:09 PM, December 1st 2012


 * Pardon me for saying this, ImperiexSeed, but you very well know that you nor any other admin do not  have authority to permit  what pages can be created or not as that is up the wiki community to decide as a whole.107.194.22.193 02:52, December 2, 2012 (UTC)


 * People, as editors of any given Wiki community, are entitled to creating and formulating a page, to a degree; it depends on how they contribute. I'll use this as an example. Look at it this way, you know the anonymous Leviathan in the black suit in Dean's flashback in "A Little Slice of Kevin"? For a contributor to come around and make on page on him, would be totally unnecessary, because for one, we don't know anything about him. So for a user to add a page devoted to detailing the philosophical and metaphorical value of the the Four Horsemen would be unneeded, but it could be worth noting on this page. -- ImperiexSeed, 10:36 PM, December 1st 2012

Pamela Barnes 'demonic' fake eyes
In Season 4's 'death takes a holiday', when Pamela removes her sunglasses that she wears due to her blindness caused by viewing Castiels tru visage, the brothers inititally seemed uneasy that her fake eyes are white, like Alastair lilith's eyes.

She says something like 'I know right? very demonic' or something along those lines, indicating that she was, herself aware that some demons had white eyes, despite only 2 appearing with pure white eyes, she said it as if the colour was almost normal, or at least that the existance of White eyed demons was widley known of.

I also think that this is the case as the brothers never referred to lilith when at the time, she was te only known white eye to the viewers, as 'white eyes' or the white eyed demon, although they did know her name from the start, well, kind of, but even after learning of Azazel's name, they usually referred to him as 'yellow eyes', and they did not give any distinction to Lilith or Alastairs eyes, or even mention them in passing.

Does this mean to say that White eyed demons were not as rare as we believe???

Princepurple (talk) 21:54, April 3, 2013 (UTC)

Well, as far as we know there are only two white eyed demons (two and a half if you count Samhain) (personally there I hoping there make Asmodeus white eyed if he ever gets introduced, but thats besides the point). Personally I see no reason why they wouldn't inform Pamela of lilith having white eyes, or Alastair for that matter, as they had recently battled him. Presumably when briefing her on Anna they would have brought him up, something like "but in the church we were attacked by Alastair, he's a very powerful demon, signified with his pale white eyes, exactly like Lilith's." or such. General MGD 109 (talk) 22:03, April 3, 2013 (UTC)


 * 2 1/2 of a type of demon? No, that makes no sense at all. Yes, White-Eyed demons are very rare, seeing as only two have appeared. -- ImperiexSeed, 1:10 PM, April 4th 2013

Hallowed ground
I think we should discuss the hallowed ground thing. We add that as a sign of a demon's strength, but every single demon on the show who has had opportunity to has walked on hallowed ground. Even low-tier ones like the Meg demon, Ruby, the Father Gil demon, the Channing demon, etc. It seems like it isn't as impressive as we think it is. I wonder if Meg wasn't even talking about demons when she was talking about the "minor leagues". The only thing we've seen hallowed ground affect is the racist truck ghost from "Route 666". Your thoughts, fellow users?50.89.225.132 19:18, June 27, 2013 (UTC)


 * Well, at the very least, EVERY demon who's appeared on the show, so far, has been able to walk on hallowed ground. So, no, it's not that impressive. There's not been any demon that's been unable to. Meg's "minor leagues" comment implies that a lower rank or class of demon exists in Hell that cannot cross hallowed ground. But in all the eight seasons, we have never see one. -- ImperiexSeed, 3:28 PM, June 27th 2013


 * You don't think thats got something to do with the fact that demons don't go near places that would stop them being able to enter do you? Sure she says minor tier, but Megs pretty much the second strongest non-higher blackeyed demon to appar on the show, and Father Gil was hardly a weak demon (he flung bobby and sam with a gesture, and could smash concrete with a single punch) as for Channing we never get any proof of strength, still doesn't it stand to reason Crowley would select a stronger demon than average for such an important job? All the other ones who walk on Hallowed ground are higher-tier demons who are generally immune or atleast resilent to some demonic weakness or other. I doubt that the majority of black-eyed demons (the masses who don't really get to be characters, that pop up a lot and are promtly killed or exorcised) could walk on hallowed ground, so I think it should still stay. Plus how many demons have we seen that can walk on higher ground six, seven, eight maybe, there are thousands of demons out there. General MGD 109 (talk) 19:38, June 27, 2013 (UTC)


 * What are you trying to say, General? In the show, every single demon has been able to effortlessly walk on hallowed ground. Try naming one that couldn't walk on hallowed ground. Can't, can you? -- ImperiexSeed, 3:42 PM, June 27th 2013
 * Thats cause none have, as of yet, but is the fact that seven to eight very powerful demons being able to overcome a demonic weakness proof that few demons are affected it? General MGD 109 (talk) 19:50, June 27, 2013 (UTC)
 * No demons are affected by it, unless the "minor leagues" indicate a rank of demon. -- ImperiexSeed, 3:52 PM, June 27th 2013
 * What does minor league mean? The majority of demons are minor leages, most black eyed demons are this, and they make up the majority of demons, meaning its a majority weakness. General MGD 109 (talk) 19:53, June 27, 2013 (UTC)
 * General, you've made it clear that you think Ruby is a weak demon, though. How could a weak demon like her walk on hallowed ground if it was truly effective against most black-eyed demons? Besides, it is highly unrealistic that every demon--low-level ones especially--around hallowed ground on the show just so happens to be immune to it when most aren't.--50.89.225.132 20:24, June 27, 2013 (UTC)


 * That is a very valid point. She is definatly a weak demon, considering she was overpowered by other black eyed demons. Okay you've got me. But is it really unrealistic, as the only demons who do walk on hallowed ground are demons who plan to, as it can't happen by accident, as such would demons who knew they would be able really even attempt it? In fact they couldn't if they wanted to, assuiming to works like other demon weaknesses. And my point still stands, all the demons upto date to walk on Hallowed ground (except apparantly Ruby, I'll have to think about that) have been stronger demons (with one potential exception) so them being immune is not unreasonable. General MGD 109 (talk) 20:30, June 27, 2013 (UTC)


 * It's probably a case of unreliable narrator (this case being Jim Murphy), with Meg vaguely referring to minor leagues as ghosts. The only demons that come to mind as minor leagues compared to black-eyed demons are crossroads demons--bar Crowley as the King of Hell, but since it's a case of non-event as opposed to having an event specifically showcasing crossroads demon un/able to enter hallowed ground, we can never tell. Conversely, five frontier churches were intentionally used by Samuel Colt to protect the Devil's Trap, which in combination, could repel even stronger demons like Azazel. This means that hallowed grounds being able to repel demons has some water to it. TL;DR, I'm also confused; it's probably inconcistency on the writers' part. FTWinchester (talk) 06:38, June 29, 2013 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I think so, too. (On a writer inconsistency.) Either they meant at the time that creatures like ghosts can't enter hallowed ground and demons are powerful enough to be unaffected, or they intended for Meg to be a very powerful demon in her own right and she actually turned out to be a low-ranking one (what I think is the case). I think the hallowed ground thing is like "Christo"--an early feature of defenses against demons that the writers either dropped or forgot about, but which could have made for some interesting stories (imagine Sam and Dean holed up in a church with demons trying to lure them out a la "The Magnificent Seven").--NaiflidG (talk) 13:50, June 29, 2013 (UTC)


 * Your probably right, they didn't seem to have a clear idea of demons till the second season, Initially it was implied demons could take physical form aswell as possess others making them somewhere between the two states, then it was confirmed they had to take a host and did not have physical form on earth. This is somewhat justified in that up until they opened the devils gate there were very few demons on earth, encountering them was a rare event, so its not to unreasonable that details about them were sketchy. And I think your idea Meg was ment to be a strong demon in her own right, thus to play up Azazel.
 * Having said that I'm wondering about are dismissal of Meg as a weak demon, because truthfully I never saw her as that weak, sure she's a black eyed demon, but still she a lot tougher than most blackeyed demons that appear on the show (she did seem to get weaker as the series went on, though this could just be stronger demons became more common so she was lower in comparison.) Reguardless I still hold she is stronger than your average blackeyed demon, and was probably somewhere in the upper-tier as blackeyed demons go (she overpowered several almost casually) so perhaphs the weakness only applies to the majority of blackeyed demons? General MGD 109 (talk) 17:50, June 29, 2013 (UTC)


 * Oh, absolutely, I meant Meg was a low-ranking demon in comparison to demons like Azazel. She's still formidable for a black-eyed demon, even though (as you said, General) she did seem to get less powerful over the seasons--partially because angels became a more intimidating enemy, partially because demons as a whole became less scary and more mook-like, she became an ally so the writers had to rein back her power to allow for more drama, etc. I stand by my statement the hallowed ground thing shouldn't be held up as an example of power, since we've seen all demons do it, but FTWinchester brings up a good point about the frontier churches. That was in late Season 2, so maybe the writers still planned for hallowed ground to repel most demons, but I still think they just forgot about it by Season 4 or so.--NaiflidG (talk) 18:41, June 29, 2013 (UTC)
 * Your probably right, they never seemed that suprised in season four when Alastair or Ruby ran into the church. So they probably have forgotten it. Still I think we should keep it, as only more powerful demons have done it (except Ruby) its still possible to hand wave it that there simplay immune, if massess of blackeyed demons start doing it, then were simply discard it, does that sound fair? General MGD 109 (talk) 18:51, June 29, 2013 (UTC)
 * Also, they still tried using churches as late as season 8, because Kevin chose to hide in one. So there is some evidence to suggest hallowed grounds (on their own) help repel demons, but only the really weak ones. FTWinchester (talk) 18:54, June 29, 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay, you guys have both swayed me. Season 1-2 canon ("Salvation", "All Hell Breaks Loose, Part 2") does seem to imply that hallowed ground usually keeps demons out, even if later seasons don't remember that. Spoken/Implied canon trumps fan nit-picking!--NaiflidG (talk) 19:01, June 29, 2013 (UTC)


 * Hazy enough to be a retcon, but still has a few evidence to point otherwise. Weird. 173.32.44.80 20:09, June 29, 2013 (UTC)

Famous people hopping.
I dont understand on how demons, for fun. Dont just haunt random famous people, I think that would be awesome Like live their lives, then move on to a different person. Like The guy who plays Dean, that would be fun.

70.77.64.109 01:00, July 12, 2013 (UTC)Random Person70.77.64.109 01:00, July 12, 2013 (UTC)

Angels again.
Ok so I know this debate has been discussed a lot but I don't see why we are saying that Azazel can presumably fight low rank angels. I mean we're not saying that same for Samhain, Crowley or Abaddon so why are we for Azazel. Can't we just keep it unbias and state the demons that we know can beat lower level angels?

Possibly, the thing is its been agreed Azazel is stronger than Alastair, so by logic he should be able to defeat Angels, just as Alastair can. General MGD 109 (talk) 20:10, September 22, 2013 (UTC)

There is no certainty that he is stronger than Alastair, just that he out ranks him. Keeping it neutral is the only fair thing to do. I mean you could argue that because Crowley challenged Castiel when he was severly weakened that implies he can defeat low rank angels but it's hardly concrete evidence. Honestly, I think avoiding assumptions is the best thing here.

There is some certainty. You could but that would be more speculative. The logic behind the argument that Azazel is stronger than Alastor is that he took several demonic weaknesses better than Alastor, ergo he's stronger. And if he's stronger, than he should be able to do what Alastor can do. Its not concrete I admit, but that is the direction the evidence points. General MGD 109 (talk) 17:36, September 23, 2013 (UTC)

But while Azazel shows immunity to holy water but Alastair is not, Azazel cannot cross iron but Alastair is not burned by it. So its hard to determine who is stronger.

Well Azazelw as also immune to Salt, while Alastair clearly wasn't. General MGD 109 (talk) 18:18, September 27, 2013 (UTC)

Iron?
What exactly is the difference between being immune to iron and being resistant to it. I mean with holy water I would say that Alastair is resistant but Azazel and Lilith are immune because they aren't burned by it where as Alastair is but can shrug it off after a bit. But Samhain touched a gate and didn't burn, Alastair touched a chain and didn't burn and Astaroth picked up a poker and didn't burn. Now I guess you could argue that Astaroth only held it for a minute or two but Alastair was tied up for hours with it and when the trap was broken he showed no sign of pain, burning or difficulty getting it off (unlike jeffreys demon who cried out and desperately tried to get it off). So why are Astaroth and Alastair resistant but Samhain is immune?

Good point about Alastair, and yes Astaroth only held it for a minute or two, which "Death Takes A Holiday" prooved is entirely possible for a very motivated black eyed demon (not that Asatroth is just thay you understand, its simply a comparison) so its entirely possible she's simply resilent. What sets Samhain appart from the others is he touched iron repeatedly volentarily and playfully, in ensence it had no effect on him what so ever. As for Alastair the fact he was locked up by Iron chains suggests it was expected to have some affect on him, (though the fact he still broke free seems to show it doesn't). I await your reply. General MGD 109 (talk) 18:13, September 27, 2013 (UTC)

I get that Samhain did it willingly and therefore is immune. I don't argue with that. But at the same time Astaroth didn't have to grab the poker but did so willingly (albeit for a few minutes) but even so Alastair managed to get the iron chain off effortlessly and silently once the devil's trap was broken. I just assumed that Samhain likes to demonstrate his power by touching iron and taunting his victims. I can sort of see why you'd say Astaroth is resilient but surely Alastair counts as immune.

Elite Demons?
What exactly are we classifying as "elite demons". The demons listed as elite demons are essentially just stronger black eyed grunts. The two demons with Lucifer didn't even demonstrate any significant difference from weaker demons. All they did was hold dean and sam for about 6 seconds and then Sam killed them with ease. So why exactly are they elite demons? The three that fought Sam and Dean I can sort of see, but even then they caught the brothers and Bobby off guard and Castiel smited each one with ease and none displayed any power but strength. I'd get if you were refering to the Knights of Hell as elite demons but why do these random black eyed demons count when they're just like any other demon grunts? Especially ones which didn't show any really impressive abilities. The vast majority of demons have been able to over power sam and dean if they re caught off guard.

Good point, we should probably remove it. General MGD 109 (talk) 17:10, October 14, 2013 (UTC)

Demon power levels

It's always seemed like demon's power comes from the demon themselves, regardless of meat suit. So why exactly was Abbadon so insistent that her followers possess Navy SEALs in last night's episode?

96.241.59.192 13:16, October 16, 2013 (UTC)Anon

I think it helps if you vessel is also in its physical prime. Remember, Azazel wanted Sam because he was trained and had experience, Abaddon thought Dean as the perfect vessel. Additionally, wounded vessels or vessels with disabilities could also hinder a demon (if it is unable to heal the vessel regularly), so that would bring us back to choosing meatsuits that are fit and strong. Lastly, I think Abaddon also wanted to go for the guns and the kevlar of the military, so maybe it's a little bit of all those factors combined. FTWinchester (talk) 13:19, October 16, 2013 (UTC)

Permission?
Just out of curiosity can anyone explain why Azazel needs permission to enter the houses of the children he gives blood to? I mean every other demon can just break down doors or teleport so why can't Azazel simply teleport in, kill the parents, bleed into the kids mouth, and the same result will occur. Any ideas?


 * In the context of a deal, there is binding force or magic (I think, at least as supported by some dialogue in the series--albeit there are also some contraindications). So if Azazel has the permission, he has the right to bleed into the children's mouths, and he could not be reprimanded for his actions. FTWinchester (talk) 13:43, October 18, 2013 (UTC)


 * Ah I see. That would make sense. Thank you.

The Season 4 Companion Guide
Does anyone have it, or can anybody get their hands on it? I just heard that there's supposed to be a quote in it from Kripke that says that white-eyed demons are stronger than yellow-eyed demons and that it's generally the lighter-colored eyes, the stronger. Unfortunately, I don't have that Guide myself to confirm that that's true. If someone could get the Guide and find the exact quote, would you please show it to us to prove it's there? It'd be nice to finally put that power level dispute to rest, once and for all. (I apologize in advance for the editing war this will surely cause, but this supposed quote really grabbed my attention, considering the "Who is stronger, Lilith or Azazel?" controversy on this site.)--NaiflidG (talk) 23:26, October 21, 2013 (UTC)

The controversy is quite strange in its own right because Kripke did state Lilith ranks higher than Azazel. Now most dispute tht power and rank aren't the same thing, which may be true. But in the context of Kripke's quote he clearly meant that moving up in the demonic hierarchy meant that Sam and Deans new enemies were becoming more deadly. Otherwise his quote would have been "Lilith ranks higher than Azazel but he's ten times as strong as her so it probably won't be too hard for sam and dean to defeat her" rather than pointing out that "you don't get much highr than her till you're in Lucifer territory". While Azazel was far more impressive on screen, I think Kripke's intention was that Lilith is stronger. Still it would be nice to have a quote to confirm power levels and I really hope that it doesn't cause a editing war.

As far as I remember, no one's ever brought that up in any of the debates I've been in over Lilith and Azazel, I don't think I've ever heard it. General MGD 109 (talk) 18:36, October 22, 2013 (UTC)

Anon, I think it stems from Azazel having the advantage of screen-time and situations to show off (FTWinchester made a post somewhere--I think in the "Who is stronger, Lilith or Azazel" blog--that expresses these points way better than I can) and also just being more popular with fans since people tend to want their favorites to be better/stronger/more special than other characters. Honestly, I like Azazel much more than Lilith, but since all in-show and out-of-'verse statements point to her having been stronger than him, I do think that she was the most powerful demon to exist in Supernatural verse.

General, same here. I don't know if that's just because not many people have the Fourth Season Guide (and those who do have it might not be on this site) or if it's because the person who said it was in there was mistaken/lying. I'd like to find out for myself so I'll try to get the Guide as soon as the possibility comes up, but that might not be 'till Christmas. Do you know if we have any users who already have it and can confirm/deny?--NaiflidG (talk) 19:52, October 22, 2013 (UTC)

Sadly no I don't, still I trust you to find out whether or not its true. General MGD 109 (talk) 20:00, October 22, 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I still don't have the Season 4 Companion, but I do have The Essential Supernatural: On the Road with Sam and Dean Winchester, which has some interesting little bits in it (I'll probably be adding the cast and crew's opinions on certain things to their respective pages soon). It didn't say anything with regards to how demonic power levels tie into eye colors, but it did classify basic ranks that each eye color fulfilled--as it says on the other wiki, the black eyes are the soldiers, the red eyes are the deal-makers, the yellow eyes are the generals, and the white eyes are the "chiefs of staff." It also stated that Ruby was Lilith's most loyal follower, that Samhain also had the title "the Lord of the Dead," and it suggested that Lilith's powers didn't actually fail on Sam in NRftW, but that that was the impression she wanted to give to keep the "you're the only one who can stop her, Sam!" con going (I know that Samhain's light also failed on Sam half a dozen episodes later, but Sam had been drinking demon blood at that time and his powers had advanced a great deal, whereas his supposed "immunity" to Lilith just popped out of nowhere after she'd already been using her powers on him). It also said that Alastair might be the second demon in creation, but we already have that noted on Alastair's page.

There are a few things I'm not sure about and would like your opinions on: it says that Lilith was the Queen of the Crossroads and Crowley her King (which is possible considering that kings and queens can rule at the same time in real-life, and would explain why Crowley and Lilith were both implied to be holding Dean's contract at different times, but...), that she is the one who sent Ruby to Hell back when Ruby was a human (I'm not sure if the author is talking about Ruby selling her soul to a demon and he's just mixing Lilith up with Astaroth, or if he means that Ruby sold her soul to Astaroth but Ruby was killed by Lilith), that Lilith sacrificed herself to free Lucifer because she loved him (which I don't really buy, considering "The Monster at the End of This Book", though I can also see why that might be true--he is her god and maker and most demons worship him, so she could be one of them--and perhaps she was either having a moment of weakness in TMatEoTB or simply trying to keep Sam focused on going after her--making herself seem desperate and frightened so that he'd feel more confident going after her), that Alastair was stabbed in the shoulder with the demon-killing knife (I seem to remember it being his heart?), and it says something about Croatoan being a "virus-sized demon," indicating that Croats are all somehow simultaneously possessed by Croatoan, which seems extremely unusual for a demon (unless I'm interpreting it wrong and the author is just describing it in a weird way). If you want context to base your answers on, just ask and I'll type it up and post it for you.--NaiflidG (talk) 23:18, December 30, 2013 (UTC)

Interesting, first gave you managed to check if its canon? Interesting points I could agree with the Samhain bit, he could manipulate the Dead so that makes sense. And thats an interesting point on Lilith and the white ligh, as it would mean she could control her powers to an incredible level. However some of those later points make me question. Still feel free to add it, just I would add a note it may not be canon. Look forward to hearing the opinions though. General MGD 109 (talk) 23:41, December 30, 2013 (UTC)

Sadly, there's no solid confirmation one way or the other. Even though some of the information seems weird, it might be canon: it's part of the line of "Official" Companion Guides ("official," as in it's been approved by people in charge as canonical) and it has a foreword from Kripke himself praising it and a lot of information from the cast and crew, so the author should have gotten his information from them--and one of them should have at least looked it over. I don't know, I'm not sure about some of this stuff but I hate the thought of wasting money on something that was just the author making crap up. Until we find solid confirmation, we should probably just decide for ourselves whether or not to regard it as canon. We could add dubious information to the characters' Apocrypha section like we did with the comic books...--NaiflidG (talk) 00:22, December 31, 2013 (UTC)

I agree, and I'm sure it counts, it mostly sounds good. General MGD 109 (talk) 00:54, December 31, 2013 (UTC)

Those sound interesting. I've been trying to get hold of the copy of those so we could finally put an end to many of the questions we have on Season 3 to 5. FTWinchester (talk) 02:49, January 1, 2014 (UTC)

So, I was just going to add the information from the Companion Guides under the Apocrypha section, but FTWinchester brought up a good point elsewhere--we have accepted the demon that possessed Tammi to be Astaroth as canon. We consider that information canon even though it came from a Companion Guide rather than the show itself. Should we then consider everything in the Companion Guides as canon? Or are they only Apocrypha material and the Astaroth page ought be reverted back to being about a nameless demon? There may be a compromise that I personally favor--that we consider the Companion Guides canon but edit accordingly if something happens in-show to contradict a piece of information from the Guides (since show canon always trumps any other source). Please share your thoughts here so we can reach a decision once and for all. If there is any opposition to including the Official Companions as canon, speak up, because otherwise I will start editing the information into the characters' bios.--NaiflidG (talk) 05:44, January 7, 2014 (UTC)

This is my view on the matter: First we scour all companions to see if everything is consistent and coherent with the show. Once we have cleared that all the information is reliable, then we start deciding if it is canon. So far, I have only ever read one companion (season 7) firsthand, and I found no problems with it. Additionally, with all these new information from companions of other seasons, I find no problem as well. This is why I was so keen to make sure that the companions are not only official, but also canon, since novels are also official, but not canon. Since the previous consensus of the wikia is that companions are official and also canon (on the matter of Tammi = Astaroth), that exact precedent was my basis in using NaiflidG's information on Lilith as canon. Additionally, Kripke did say on two separate interviews, that Lilith was indeed the highest-ranking demon, and that their plan has always been to introduce demons that are found higher in the hierarchy as seasons progressed. So the new information so far, 1) has not been contrary to the show canon, and 2) is supported by interviews from Kripke himself. Of course, once inconsitencies start to appear, I have no problems with reverting the information, so long as we revert all information from companion books. It is all or none. Companions are either canon or not. We can't pick which parts and statements are canon, and which ones aren't because that defeats the purpose of canonicity. Canonicity is objective, and if we choose which parts to use, that is being subjective. FTWinchester (talk) 06:14, January 7, 2014 (UTC)

Just me being the devil's advocate here, but I'd point out that there are many inconsistencies within canon itself due to writers' ideas changing, showrunners changing, the show going on longer than anyone had anticipated. Writers are forced to come up with new ideas, which may not mesh well with previous canon but which we try to fan-wank into making sense anyway. Just a few examples of inconsistencies are Azazel planning to use Special Children as soldiers in an upcoming war but then having them all killed and him working for Lucifer, Lilith ordering Sam to be killed even though she plans on him being alive to kill her, Lucifer intended to be sympathetic, honest, and likeable character but turning out to be a liar, a whiny brat, and a Complete Monster, Brady being revealed as Jessica's killer despite everything prior to that showing that Azazel had done it, Chuck confirmed as God out-of-universe then being unconfirmed and then Chuck possibly being dead, the existence of rogue reapers, the Winchesters not believing rugarus even existed until "Metamorphosis" but casually talking about John hunting one when they were kids in "Bad Boys". We can and do accept the TV show as canon, but we also edit things to match "current canon" as more episodes are shown and inconsistencies get made. The Guides are made at the time their corresponding seasons have just finished, so they contain information that might not match up to future seasons. That might not make them non-canonical so much as simply being made before future plot points are thought up and implemented in-show.--NaiflidG (talk) 22:01, January 7, 2014 (UTC)

Honestly, all of the examples you cited bar Chuck being God never appeared to be canon inconsistencies with me. Azazel naturally was keeping the exact nature of his game secret (even to angels), and so did not specify from the beginning that he was planning for them to kill each other off (otherwise, he would scare off potential special children), and he was feeding each special children lies and false belief that he was rooting for them instead of the others. Most of the demons from Season 3 were attempting to kill Sam on their own accord (i.e., the Magnificent Seven). In fact, most of the demons around that time were confused and following different dogmas--some like the Seven just wanted to be out, with Pride specifically wanting to kill Sam just because, while Casey was ready to take orders from Sam. On the other hand, Astaroth believed Lilith to be the real Messiah, yet appeared to still be out of contact from Lilith as she did not appear to have any clear orders at that time. Additionally, you are forgetting one crucial part in the plan--Ruby (under Lilith's orders) was always swooping in to help Sam survive, and eventually was there to hone his powers. Lucifer's character and all his manipulation and lies via other demons were all supposed to confuse the hell out of Sam's head (and by extension, our own) anyway, so that he would be more susceptible to Lucifer's machinations. Finally, any retcons made in the show itself provide explanations and thus are better accepted as canon changes as opposed to information from other platform/media. I mean, if we were going to be subjective about such information, what is the point of us sourcing/citing our claims? What is keeping a contributor from choosing only the good parts to make his/her favorite character appear better and stronger than one he/she does not like, all the while forgetting information that would suggest otherwise? What is keeping an editor from dictating/enforcing only parts of the backstory as canon or not?

In fact, I have previously proposed a template about retcon,

to which I received the following response,


 * "I just have two disagreements: the first is your "Retcon/Conflict in Canon" template, I don't think thats ones necessary, as as far as I know there has been no true example of reconing, for examples, firstly at no point did anyone say there was only four archangels, that was simply the number that appeared in season five. Secondly its entirely possible he could have a step-father who, considering his orginal one abbandoned him, he took as his real father. My point is there has been no complete recon's yet, so including it would mearly cause disputes over wether it was a recon or not."  ---General MGD 109

So unless we also want to scrutinize everything in the series that are arguably retcons (which is a different thing altogether), the status quo was that there are currently no retcons in the series itself, aside from Chuck = God. Even then, that is still pretty cohesive and consistent for the series altogether, as opposed to other media/platforms. FTWinchester (talk) 00:15, January 8, 2014 (UTC)

I'll have to disagree with you on that. Kripke has said that the special children were supposed to last longer than they did, but he thought they were boring so he killed them all off via Azazel's little competition. That indicates to me that the original plan was that they were supposed to be an army for demons. In "Devil's Trap" and "In My Time of Dying", Azazel indicates that his plan involves using all the special children and that John knows this (what? getting all but one killed? those aren't "plans," that's "a plan to use a weird tactic to find Lucifer's true vessel by picking a random bunch of people to make deals with, hope they have six-month-old children in ten years, bleed in said children's mouth, wait twenty-three more years, then have them kill each other off and assume the last one standing will be the Chosen One rather than keep them all alive to make sure the Chosen One doesn't get killed by accident"); in "Hunted", he tells Scott that they're going to be his soldiers in an upcoming war and another demon tells Gordon the same thing. By the time "All Hell Breaks Loose" rolls around, Kripke doesn't like writing the special children anymore, so he changes Azazel's plan to using only one special child and has the rest killed off; the survivor, Azazel says, will be the leader of an army of demons--not the army of special children he previously talked about. Then Season 4 comes along--the season based on a retcon as Kripke stated previously that angels wouldn't appear in the series because God was supposed to work through hunters--and Azazel's plan is changed yet again; no, he wasn't opening the devil's gate to get an army, he was opening it free Lilith because Lucifer told him to! no, he wasn't amassing an army of special children, he was looking for Lucifer's vessel and for some dumb reason had them kill each other off! As for Lilith--she is higher-ranking than any other demon (Azazel included), yet she has to fight lesser demons for nine or twelve episodes until they actually start listening to her? She holds Dean's contract, except the demon who does hold it is called a "he" (so it was probably Crowley--considering Kripke's attempts to tie up all the loose ends in Season 5, I'd bet that Kripke realized this inconsistency himself and created Crowley to explain it retroactively). Lilith has Ruby manipulate Sam for her plan to work, but sends demons to kill him (you're right, Ruby was around to protect them), has Bela try to assassinate him to get out of her deal (if Dean hadn't figured out what was going on, Bela would have killed them because Ruby wasn't around to stop her), and apparently entrusts Ruby with the task of protecting Sam from demons who are much stronger than her such as Astaroth and Alastair? (Nothing implies that Astaroth wasn't in contact with Lilith; what we do know is that Lilith will endanger Sam's life with an even graver threat in the future by sending a swarm of about thirty demons to kill Sam in a few episodes with only Ruby and her knife to protect him--and Ruby walked away and left him, so Sam probably would've died as a result of her orders if Dean's plan hadn't worked. I don't see why Lilith wouldn't have ordered Astaroth to kill Sam as well. Then again, I suppose it could've been a totally different demon that Astaroth was working for, since she never explicitly identifies her leader as Lilith and there were supposedly other demons competing for leadership and looking to kill Sam, but that seems unlikely.) None of Lilith's powers work on Sam, except she was able to hold him against a wall with telekinesis while making him watch his brother get killed by a hellhound and her underlings' powers work on him just fine (until he drinks enough demon blood to become stronger than them). And no, I was talking about Kripke himself saying that Lucifer was "a sympathetic figure who speaks gently and doesn't lie" and how Lucifer... really didn't end up that way.

Come to think of it, demon lore, Mary being a hunter and having made a deal, and the Trickster being Gabriel are all retcons as well. Mary didn't act in the pilot as a hunter would (she didn't become alarmed by the lights suddenly flickering, she rushed into a dangerous situation without any weapons) and she didn't act as though a deal to let a demon into her house was due that day (she had no warding against demons set up, she didn't seem anxious or frightened, she didn't realize that Azazel was in her house until she saw his eyes). The Trickster's being an archangel is a retcon simply because angels were not originally intended to show up in the series. Demons were established in the first season as either manifesting in their own form or possessing a person to the point that John didn't now if Meg was possessed or a demon appearing as a human (now they can only ever possess people), only the strongest demons can enter hallowed ground (now every Tom, Dick, and Harry can waltz on in), "Christo" reveals a possessed person (the writers admitted that they've retconned that out of existence because it made things too easy), they can read minds (Abaddon sort of can, but Dean implied that they were supposed to be able to do this just by being in someone's vicinity instead of by partially possessing them), and Azazel being Meg and Tom's father (except all of them became demons rather than being born demons and Meg stops calling him her father in later seasons and instead implies that she just worked for him, so that's retconned as well).

I could probably keep listing off inconsistencies (I mean, I haven't even touched anything after the Kripke years and that's where problems really started cropping up), but you get the point. Writers change, showrunners change, ideas change. The writers often forget what happened in previous episodes (or they'll just look it up on a wiki) and will write whatever they feel suits the story best at the time, disregarding past storylines and pre-established canon in favor of what they want to do at the moment. IIRC they don't even have a show Bible (basically, a collection of what they've previously said in canon) anymore (Kripke had one but I think he said he gave it to the anime show-makers for reference in Season 6) and sometimes crew-members will correct them on what's happened previously (I know there's one guy they mentioned as doing this a lot who was an Assistant Director or something, but I'm not sure if he's with the show anymore). Unlike us, these writers aren't in it for the story and what makes sense; they're trying to create new material every week to surprise us and retcons are an acceptable price to be paid for that. They take the bare bones of what's already been said, find new angles to explore, put new spins on them, and in doing so can contradict themselves.

I wasn't saying that we should pick and choose what canon we want based off of our own preferences. I was saying that we could add in information from the Guides and just edit it if show canon comes along to completely contradict it (if we decide to accept the Guides as canon). It'd a flawed method because we'd be assuming it was canon until proven otherwise, but I'd argue that the same happens often with show canon, which is constantly changing, evolving, and in the process retconning and making plot holes out of what has previously been shown. Fans have to twist themselves into knots trying to make logical sense out of the final product of many, many writers coming into the series (Carver), leaving the series (Kripke and Gamble), putting in new ideas (Knights of Hell and the Men of Letters), changing old ideas (prophets reading tablets instead of writing prophecies), what would make sense in-verse but what wouldn't work on the show's budget or with the show's rating, etc. I don't see, theoretically, how it'd be any different for us to include the Guides as canon and edit as we go further along in the show than it is for us to include episode-given information as canon and edit as we go further along in the show.

All that said, I'm still personally skeptical of the Guides being canon. I vote for simply including them as Apocrypha. What do you vote for, FTWinchester? Also, other users, please vote as well because this is a pretty important subject that can potentially change a lot of what we consider canon. Let your voices be heard! You don't have to write out huge arguments (that's just what FTWinchester and I like to do--I guess we're natural-born debaters), just say what you think and it'll be taken into account. I would prefer for us to reach a conclusion by next week, if possible.--NaiflidG (talk) 01:45, January 8, 2014 (UTC)

Well I must say for the first time here in the wikia, I was intimidated by somebody else's post. This is a really challenging concept as it borrows a lot from perspectives and accommodation of such. You bring good points, but a lot of the concepts you said did not even make it into the show--just like how Kripke himself also said that Dean was just supposed to hunt/kill Sam in the end (without any reference to angels, like what you said). This was referenced in early season 2, but even then, it was up in the air whether Dean would actually do it. If you look at the interview and the course of the series, you could always claim that this was a retcon. But that would be overlooking other possibilities within the show that affected the course of the show. Did Dean simply disregard John's order to kill Sam because Dean loved his brother and found help from the angels (somewhat) or simply because the writers retconned it and that there was no explanation readily available within the story? Of course the latter is the more important reason, but we still have a reason within the story that offers an explanation without going into the meta or breaking the fourth wall.

Of course Azazel needed "all" of the special children circa Season 1--not so he could build an army of them, but to find the best one that would lead the demonic army and serve as the vessel for Lucifer. Azazel opening the devil's gate did not suffer from retcons, rather, it accommodated all of them, and the original plans of the writers. Opening the devil's gate was hitting several birds with one stone--releasing generic low-level demons that would serve as the army (original plan), and releasing high-tier demons that were trapped very deep in hell (your claim as retcon). However, do note that Kripke has always planned Azazel to be working for a higher demon that would eventually free Lucifer (and by extension, prove that the possibility of at least one archangel existing has always been present). Again, I am not saying that the writers' decision changes had nothing to do with such (as they are actually the ultimate driving force), but that is not to say that everything had to be completely rewritten just to accomodate the retcon. There were still explanations readily available within the existing canon that supported the change. Granted, I'll give you the use of 'Cristo'--there weren't even explainers on that retcon.

Mary being a hunter in the past but not acting as one during the night she died is because Michael wiped her memories, remember? The Trickster being changed into an archangel may have been hindsight, but even then, there was no harm done. At all. The explanation was smooth and it fits easily into the lore without any uncomfortable after effect, and was even f***ing awesome (at least for me). It also emphasizes how well the entire Kripke Era was cohesive right from the start. Both of these cases (Mary and Gabriel) are in no way retcons. For something to be classified as a retcon, it must have first been established as something NOT possible in any way in a specific continuity or mythos. Where was it stated that humans could not have had their memories altered, or that beings with immense magical powers could not masquerade as something else? If Sam and Dean could have several aliases and undercover identities while working, surely something like an archangel could do the same? If a Shtriga could pose as a doctor, surely an Archangel could do something similar? Also, citation on John thinking Meg as a demon that could manifest herself without a vessel? I thought the confusion was whether Meg was possessed or not? I can't locate a transcript right now to review/reasearch it.

The thing with a fantasy work is that there are several ways of circumventing natural phenomena that changes in previous established mythos are presented as  revelations  rather than corrections (retcons). Of course, we viewers looking from the fourth wall know that the writers decided to change directions, and it will inevitably happen. But looking at it in the mythos itself, is it obvious that it was a mistake? Is it a complete heel face turn? Is it too complex an explanation that changed most or everything in the mythos or too shabby that it leaves glaring holes? Is it forced? Or is the alternative actually possible, present and hinted before anyway? To better illustrate this, I would have to use examples:

Your claim that the trickster being retconned as Gabriel is like saying that the existence of angels and God is a retcon because they said in Season 2 that they don't exist, that John meeting his sons in Deadman's Blood is a retcon because he said in a previous episode Shadow that they have to work separately, or that Lilith herself was a retcon, because she was supposed to be some demon guy named 'Zarqawi', or, even better, Yellow-eyed demon's name was retconned into Azazel (really?). Note that just because something was not explored or revealed earlier does not mean it could not have existed in the future. What makes it a blatant retcon is if it directly contradicted a clear established fact (similar to the argument just because you haven't seen it doesn't mean it doesn't exists). Otherwise, I could claim, with that logic, that all supernatural revelations/expositions are retcons of the episodes before them--i.e., Season 2 vampire coven of Lenore being 'good' vampires retconned Season 1 because all vampires in Season 1 killed humans for food, Alphas were a retcon on all monsters, and Charlie Bradbury wasn't even thought of by Kripke, so her existence is a retcon (I know the latter is exaggeration but it highlights the point).

I'm probably speaking circles at this point. Again, my point is, the live-action series is our standard for canon. Any (or most) changes done within are given explanations, most of them entirely possible from the previous established mythos. I would not claim it is perfectly consistent, but generally is. Arguing that because the live-action series itself has inconsistencies and therefore could justify the inconsistencies of other platforms/media and further muddle the live-action series with those additional inconsistencies sounds ridiculous to me. We try to limit inconsistencies and stick to our standard. Any information from outside sources/media are either accepted in whole, or rejected in its totality. I don't mind losing those supplemental information, so long as we don't bring in new problems from outsourcing information--I only included them as canon because that was the previous consensus of the wikia, whereas I was actually hesitant to do so then. Your suggestion of adding everything and editing as the series goes is tempting, and I am really inclined to do so, but with that line of thought, novels (which clearly aren't meant to be canon) also have canon information which we could add, but also bring a lot of mixed and non-canon information, or canon information that has already been disproved. Do you suggest we also do the same to those materials? FTWinchester (talk) 04:33, January 8, 2014 (UTC)

I'll take that as a compliment. I like tripping people up.

To be honest, I doubt that Kripke planned that far ahead because he seems to change his mind way too much for it all to be pre-planned. After the fact, he tries to tie all everything together to make sense in terms of his latest idea. He does that really well and he was the best of our show-runners (and I wish that Revolution would fail so that he'd come back to Supernatural to save it), but I don't believe a word out of that guy's mouth when he says he has planned something out beyond the bare bones of things. (As for Lucifer always having been planned as the fifth season baddie even though angels were never supposed to come into it, methinks that Satan would've turned out to be another demon had angels not been introduced.) As for "Christo," I've fan-wanked that that only works on very low-level demons and that demons (like Meg, for example) who can walk on hallowed ground aren't affected by it, which is why Sam and Dean don't bother to use it (that or they usually don't feel the need to use it since the demon is usually the one attacking them or they don't realize that they're around a demon until it's already revealed itself, at which point there's no point to making it expose itself with "Christo"), but it'd be nice canon justified its non-usage, either in-universe or out-, beyond "it makes things too easy."

Did they say that that was the case with Mary? Michael only explicitly said that she wouldn't remember him or Dean, not that he was erasing her memory of making the deal. And Mary recognized Azazel right before he killed her, which would mean that she remembered him. (I like to think that Michael did erase her memories of that and that she only remembered upon seeing Azazel--which would make her death even worse because she had no idea what was coming until it all crashed in on her at once--but only to justify why Mary wasn't acting like her deal with the Devil was coming due that night and a demon was coming into her house for an unspecified reason. I'm not sure if Michael erasing her memory of the deal is actually canon, though it should be if it isn't because otherwise Mary was an idiot.) The Trickster=Gabriel made perfectly good sense in-universe, but I'm calling retcon because A.) Kripke had said there'd be no angels, then retroactively changed a pre-established trickster god into an angel, and B.) it wasn't foreshadowed at all until the very episode in which it was retconned. For Meg, it was said in "Salvation" after she talked to John on the phone. From the transcript: SAM: "So you think Meg is a demon?" JOHN: "Either that, or she's possessed by one. It doesn't really matter." Implying that Meg could be possessed, but could also be a demon assuming human form.

Come on now, I didn't say any of that. I was saying that angels are retcons because Kripke himself said they wouldn't be showing up and his word (at the time) was law. John meeting his sons in "Dead Man's Blood" isn't a retcon because they met up by accident and Sam and Dean had to convince him to work with them. Lilith is an arguable retcon since she was stated to be holding Dean's contract in the last two episodes of Season 3 even though a male demon was previously stated to be the one holding Dean's contract in "Bedtime Stories", but then Crowley was retconned into existence and that resolved that retcon. (I'm starting to get very tired of that word.) Other than that, there was no prior contradiction to her existence. Azazel's name isn't a retcon because it wasn't previously established as or even hinted to be anything else (in fact, it was foreshadowed by the Sigil of Azazel John used in "In My Time of Dying"); "Yellow Eyes," "The Yellow-Eyed Demon," etc., were previously established as his nicknames, not his true name. The rest of your examples are entirely correct, of course, and I can't argue against them. The Alphas, for instance, aren't retcons just because they hadn't been shown or mentioned before Season 6, as their existence didn't "break the rules"--in fact, it made perfect sense for them to exist; there has to be a first of every species and for that species to exist, that first has to reproduce. You seem to be viewing things from a purely in-universe perspective of blatant, explicit contradictions, whereas I'm also dragging in out-of-universe perspective and nitpicking the hell out of things. I suspect that's the writer in me; it bugs the crap out of me that they don't plan every little thing out ahead of time or clarify/justify what doesn't make sense on the surface. I try not to let that frustration influence my contributions to the wikia, but that also makes it hard to justify things in the articles that don't mesh well when there's no canonical explanation for inconsistencies (like, I can try to fanwank Lilith's actions in TMAtEoTB, but the fact remains that the crew-members are apparently saying that she loved Lucifer so much and so strongly believed that he should rule the universe that she willingly sacrificed herself to free him while in-show Lilith tried to make a deal with Sam for his life (the only one who could break the final seal by killing her) because she didn't want to die and said that she'd let Lucifer rot in his cage if Sam took her up on her offer and there's no official explanation of the disparity there).

Good point. As to your question, no, I would not consider including novels as canon information unless those novels were specifically said to be canon. Kripke said that the novels and comics weren't canon (though he also said that fans could accept them as such if they wanted to), thus they aren't, even though they sometimes have staff members contributing to them (Kripke himself was in talks with some of the comic book writers about what they were writing, but that still doesn't make them canon; show writers Andrew Dabb (also a supervising producer) and Daniel Loflin wrote "Beginning's End", but that doesn't make "Beginning's End" canon; Kripke's personal assistant wrote two Supernatural novels and a comic in addition to an episode, but that doesn't make the novels or comic canon). Even if Kripke himself wrote a Supernatural-based novel or comic (I think he actually did draw a joke comic-strip for it once), it wouldn't be canon unless the current showrunner--Jeremy Carver, for now--said that it was because even though Kripke was the one who created it and ran it for five seasons, he's not the one in charge of it and so he doesn't get a say in what's canon anymore. (I mean, it'd probably be better than the show at this point, but it still wouldn't be canon because the ones in charge of the show said it wasn't.) I would actually consider Companion Guides "higher canon" than the novels and comics simply because they concern themselves with canonical material rather than telling new stories whole-cloth and because they have tons of information from the showrunners, writers, cast, and crew even though the Guide writers don't seem to ever be directly connected to the show, but personally considering something "higher canon" than the novels and comics still doesn't make it canon-canon. Until we can find a source directly confirming the Guides as canon, I say that we not consider them as such and merely file it under Apocrypha along with the comics and the novels. (With that in mind, we should probably rename of the Astaroth page. Perhaps to "The Witch Demon" or something similar? It could just go back to being her host's name, "Tammi Fenton," but "The Witch Demon" fits her better as it describes her job. I just feel ridiculous referring to a demon as Tammi.)

Question--should we also be including the actors' takes on their characters as canon or not? They are regarded as the best judges of their characters, feeling that they feel this way about that thing, but they also are basing their statements off of their personal takes of their characters and their opinions isn't part of the show and may not even be backed up by the show. They are involved in the show, but they're also not the ones making the decisions. I know that we take writers' statements as canon even when they're not shown on-screen, but should it also be true of the actors?--NaiflidG (talk) 08:45, January 8, 2014 (UTC)

Oh that was indeed a compliment. Anyway, the gist of our discussion basically lies on, as how you perfectly put it,  me "viewing things from a purely in-universe perspective of blatant, explicit contradictions", with you "dragging in out-of-universe perspective and nitpicking the hell out of things". We even have different points of view on Kripke's interviews, because, as you said, you don't believe that he has had at least a skeletal plan on how the story would go, and thus explains why he has had several inconsistencies. And going back to those inconsistencies, I must say you have convinced me that there were several minor retcons along the way, that I must have fan-wanked in the past (hence me disregarding them in the present). Actually now that you have brought those previous examples up, I do remember myself asking why vampires, which were supposed to be near-extinct in Season 1, is the most prevalent monster the Winchesters have had encountered so far, and how vampires in Season 3 could sense blood and hear heartbeats from at least a block away but Dean could simply waltz in on an ancient vampire nest in Season 8. You're right--I did view things too much in-universe, and, if I may add, for far too long, now that I realize it. Although, this does not invalidate the fact that in some or many of the things we discussed, there were still in-universe explanations that would work.

As for the actual real point of this discussion, I guess I should start from the beginning. Initially, I was against including information as canon, but I am now only advocating for counting that as canon because that was the consensus of the wikia on a precedent. Of course, the consensus outweighs my personal opinion. Now, however, that there is an opportunity to challenge the status quo, my position is to accept them if they agree with the live-action series (this is where the discussion got bigger, though), or drop them if they don't. Whatever the decision is, I support it, so long as the entirety is accepted or rejected, and not just parts of it. As for actors, I really don't know--it's a different matter altogether. This is the slippery slope I wanted to avoid initially about using the companion as canon--where do we stop outsourcing information? I guess this is something I am not prepared to answer concretely as of this point. FTWinchester (talk) 17:21, January 10, 2014 (UTC)

Could somebody else weigh in on this issue, please? FTWinchester (talk) 20:54, January 12, 2014 (UTC)


 * This all depends on what is defined as canon. I'd say these guides, companions and the animation series need to be more than relative to be seen as canon. If something is even minutely in contradiction to anything that's been presented in the show, the whole book, or whatever, is not canon. -- ImperiexSeed, 4:59 PM, January 12th 2014

Is anyone else going to chime in, or are y'all content to just sit back and let us figure it out on our own? What we do and don't accept as canon is a huge decision that will affect a lot of information on this wikia. It's fine if you don't want to get caught up in a debate so you don't say anything at all, but you don't say anything at all, then you don't have any say in the matter at all. Are all of you okay with that? Please, speak up so we can put this matter to bed, once and for all.--NaiflidG (talk) 20:52, January 21, 2014 (UTC)


 * Yuhoo, I did respond, NaiflidG. Which you obviously skimmed over, because, just above yours, is a response other than yours, FTWinchester or General MGD 109. It's nice to NOT be heard. Anyway, my previous comment is the stabling for how canon should be viewed. -- ImperiexSeed, 5:00 PM, January 21st 2014

I didn't skim over your response, Imperiex, I was asking for new users to chime in. As for what you said in our previous response, I agree--in lieu of official confirmation one way or the other (I believe that the animation has been confirmed as being set in an alternate continuity, i.e. not canon to the TV series, and that Kripke has said that the tie-in novels aren't canon, so that just leaves the Official Guides and possibly the comics), we should include only what we all agree to accept as canon and accept that material as canon only if none of it contradicts TV show canon. Unfortunately, upon re-reading my Guides, there is some stuff in The Essential Supernatural and possibly The Official Season 7 Companion Guide that seems to contradict canon. (For example, The Essential Supernatural suggests that Ruby made the demon-killing knife when Season 8 states that the Kurds did.) Therefore, I say that we should relegate the Official Guides and assorted materials from pseudo-canon to apocrypha, on par with the tie-in novels. (Except information directly quoted from cast and crew members... unless future show canon comes along to contradict that.) Who agrees, and who disagrees?--NaiflidG (talk) 22:51, January 21, 2014 (UTC)

I also read from the Essential Supernatural that Crowley cast a spell on his blood so that it would send Dick, Dean and Cas to Purgatory, which sounds total baloney. It wasn't even hinted in the show. So I vote that the Essential is no longer canon. FTWinchester (talk) 22:53, January 21, 2014 (UTC)


 * That's definitely a confliction, yes, but there could be multiple reasons for the discrepancy. The book was written and released before the episode of that season, though. I think cast and crew members have, at multiple points, already contradicted themselves at different points throughout the series. We are thus thrust into a responsibility. We, as fans, have to do our best to grad out contradictories when they appear and maintain a credible hold on what's meant to be canon. -- ImperiexSeed, 7:15 PM, January 21st 2014

So, Imperiex, would you vote for us including the Guides as canon or not, and if so, do you have any stipulations you'd add for what makes Guide info canon? (For example, how would you handle the contradictions in The Essential Guide if you wanted to accept most/all of The Essential Guide as canon?) And FTWinchester, are you saying that you vote all Guides (and related books, such as John Winchester's Journal and Bobby Singer's Guide to Hunting) as not-canon? And again, if not, what "rules" would you like to apply to what makes a Guide canon or not?--NaiflidG (talk) 00:52, January 22, 2014 (UTC)


 * Regarding anything presentable, it has to be more than relative for me to even think of whether or not it could be canon. I don't want to blot the whole book out on that alone, I really need more examples to assess for me to come to a standing on that. I will say this, if that book poses a considerable amount of such contradictions, I would laminate it as not canonical. But, again, I need more to make any assessment. -- ImperiexSeed, 8:22 PM, January 21st 2014


 * I've always considered John Winchester's Journal, Bobby Singer's Guide to Hunting (and pretty much all other books) as non-canon. Everything that's not from the live-action series, I don't consider canon. However, as some pointed out that the Official Companion is supposed to be discussing about behind-the-scenes-canon anyway, and not telling a story like the novels, they moved to consider the guides as canon. I suppose you could say the same thing about the Essential book, that it also provides additional information on the canon (I would agree, because that argument makes total sense, and a number of votes outnumbers my single opinion). However, what do we do now with the dubious information? Thing is, like what I've said several times before, canon is supposed to be objective. If people had to vote on whether a material is canon, then that in istelf speaks volumes about the canonicity of the source, right? (Same reason why many historians believe the nicene creed where people debated and voted on which books would make it to the Bible or not makes them believe the Bible is not credible) It's so difficult to come up with a consensus since it's basically just about four of us discussing this, and we all have separate views. One could claim the guides are canon, others would claim otherwise, another would say it is canon but it was just retconned, there's just so many sides but too few voices to try to find some halfway point to reconcile the different points of view.


 * Imperiex, just to give you a point of view, of the whole book (which is a less than a couple hundred pages thick), I've only seen about one or two dubious information so far. The rest has been pretty cohesive (I think) to the live-action series material. I suppose that it would be more akin to a series commentary from the cast and production staff, with visual guides. (Actually now that I think about it, series commentaries are often considered canon, including those information revealed outside of the original source material like Dumbledore being gay or Tolkien's notes about the expanded Middle-Earth) Confused yet? I am, too. FTWinchester (talk) 01:51, January 22, 2014 (UTC)

High-tier powers: access to/from Hell
I have always been seriously bothered by the correlation between 'power/rank' and 'ability to leave hell' that is being implied by the article. I don't think the ability to easily leave hell correlates to greater power/rank. While it could even be argued that the correlation is inversely proportional, I would rather take it that it really simply depended on the demon. Cases in point, Samhain and Lilith. Both are incredibly powerful, but both needed elaborate rituals to be freed. Does that mean they are weak? No. In fact, in both of their cases, they were incredibly strong (and even members of the strongest demons), hence the great difficulty in freeing them. It's pretty much what you would do to extremely dangerous criminals: you put them in a high-security prison (just like Lilith was described to be "neck-deep in the pit"). Although not a demon, the same case held true for Lucifer, who despite his incredible power, was still unable to leave because of his cage. Additionally, it also applied to Eve, who was powerful, but required rituals for her to crossover from Purgatory into Earth. FTWinchester (talk) 19:59, November 23, 2013 (UTC)

You've got a point there, though that does beg the question how opening the devils gate works, as surely it would only open in one section and all the demons who were closest would scrable there, as its very doubtful so many demons were at the bottom (not to mention the still tortured souls)  so how did work for freeing Lilith? Reguardless I think you can't argue being able to teleport across different dimensions is a greater display of power than being able to teleport to different places in the same dimension. General MGD 109 (talk) 00:25, November 24, 2013 (UTC)

I know that moving from one dimension to another one is a greater feat of power than just moving within the same dimension. There is no question about that. But that is excluding the fact that a) the different dimensions exist on laws that defy our understanding of nature and physics and the fact that b) some beings were more heavily guarded than others. So we also can't easily assume that just because one being could move freely across dimensions, they are more powerful than those that can not. This is again, based on the fact that many powerful beings were given more 'locks' than others, so to speak. Castiel had the ability to enter hell and lay seige to it. He could also enter Heaven at that time. So that's three dimensions (including earth) under his belt. At the same time, Lucifer remains trapped in the cage. Does that mean Castiel is more powerful than the archangel Lucifer? No, because Lucifer was subjected to extreme levels of security. This is similar to the case of Lilith and Samhain. If we are to draw comparisons to the power of beings based on their ability to move about/teleport/cross dimensions, at least apply the comparisons only to beings who were equally 'free', and not between beings where one has obviously been imprisoned. FTWinchester (talk) 14:08, November 24, 2013 (UTC)

Well for that to work, we have to also take into account the fact that Azazel and Alastair (and probably Crowley) were also very old and powerful demons, so it begs the question why they weren't imprisoned in a similiar manner? Aside from a few comments exactly how imprisoned in  hell a demon is has never been fully stated. Lucifer we know was imprisoned in well the cage which was specially build to stop him escaping. As far the shows shown, only the most powerful demons can travel in and out of hell at will, all the rest need to be released. Your point does stand that Lilith and Samhain were very well buired, but it does beg questions. Personally it would probably be best if we kept the facts, but removed the comparisons. Mind you several demons do possess powers that others don't. General MGD 109 (talk) 18:34, November 24, 2013 (UTC)

I obviously wouldn't have the answer as it would be the writers who would have the discretion as to how secure Lilith and Samhain were imprisoned (most probably for plot device and plot progression, at the same time being grounded on lore). Nevertheless, what you said was indeed what I was proposing--for us to remove the correlation between 'power' and 'ability to move to and from hell freely'. Additionally, we never knew how 'free' those demons were before the devil's gate was opened (save for Azazel). Crowley may have been making deals before the gate was opened but remember that there were rituals to summon crossroad demons, and crowley had his own summoning ritual to earth as well. Furthermore, several other demons with unique and/or relatively immense power were released only after the gate was opened: the Seven Sins, Casey, Astaroth and Ruby. My last argument against the (positive/direct) correlation is that throughout the series, most extremely powerful beings (also usually the most powerful of their kind) have been imprisoned as well--not just for demons. Death (the most powerful horseman AND reaper) was bound by the Host of Heaven (also consider how the analogy would also apply to reapers being able to move freely through most dimensions while their infinitely stronger leader remained trapped), the Leviathans and  Eve were imprisoned/thrown into Purgatory, and finally, we have Lilith and Samhain being kept in maximum security in hell. All of them required elaborate rituals before they could be freed. Given the implication of how the article is currently written, it would then mean that all of these examples would be 'weak' simply because of the fact that they can't move out of their respective prisons/dimensions initially. And we both know that is very far from the truth (a full 180 degrees, actually). We have more examples of stronger demons (and other beings as well) initially being unable to move about freely than those who are strong and at the same time also free right from the start. FTWinchester (talk) 22:38, November 24, 2013 (UTC)

Yeah I know thats what you were preposing I was saying I agreed with you. As for your analogies, I still think there slightly flawed, traveling between dimensions and escaping from a prison specifically designed to hold you are two diffent things. Still I do agree with you, however we also have no evidence that said demons could come and leave hell when the felt like it. Its strange though it appears the nature of hell depends on the writers, sometimes its just one big area were everyone it thrown and they only way out is either to be summoned or be powerful enough to leave by teleportation, sometimes it is a much more complex structure littered with many levels.General MGD 109 (talk) 23:43, November 24, 2013 (UTC)

Alright, cool. I wish the writers would get a bit more clear on many parts of the lore. Unfortunately, I think these questions are best asked during a convention (the likes of which I no longer wish to attend due to the fact that they are costly and that most other participants would be fangirls who would ask the actors about their personal lives and/or shipping concerns rather than focusing on the actual show and its lore). FTWinchester (talk) 00:00, November 25, 2013 (UTC)

I really don't know where to begin, at least where I'm jumping in. There's two theories, and only two. By the looks of it, at least on the surface, Hell holds cells, variated in different spots. That's why the hundred of demons couldn't just leave without the devil's gate swinging open. Or, certain demons are specially confined, whereas most others can travel freely. ImperiexSeed, 7:02 PM, November 25th 2013

That's what I was thinking, too, but we never really got an in-depth explanation on how some high-tier demons were unable to escape initially despite their power. Anyway, the article has been clearer now on the topic at hand. FTWinchester (talk) 06:28, November 26, 2013 (UTC)

Underpowered
I sometimes feel like demons in Supernatural are very underpowered. I mean, compared to what they could be; I really like how super-strength is portrayed in Smallville. The characters actually look affected. Let's take Alastair, for example. He should be able to toss Dean through a building. In "I Know What You Did Last Summer" all he did was slightly push them. -- ImperiexSeed, 6:28 PM, November 28th 2013

It's CIS/PIS (Character/Plot Induced Stupidity). It's because our portagonists are mostly regular humans wrestling with supernaturally strong beings. I understand your pain, but if we were to be more realistic, Sam and Dean would not have survived past Season 1. It's also not just for demons--it's for everyone. Many of their opponents keep on forgetting they have telekinesis and biokinesis and all those other abilities that should allow them to squash the Winchesters from several feet away. FTWinchester (talk) 00:21, November 29, 2013 (UTC)


 * These type of beings, angels and demons, in real-life can destroy this universe 9765891345623887654 times over. That would warrant a talk article on "Overpowered." LOL. That's not what I'm asking, NOT EVEN CLOSE! I'd just like it to be more powered than Alastair, my favorite demon and possibly character, barely shoving them around. -- ImperiexSeed, 9:08 PM, November 28th 2013

Devil's trap bullets.
Bit of a random question, but if demons are shot with a devil's trap bullet, couldn't they just dig it out of their meatsuits? I mean they can still move their arms as Abaddon was able to grab and shove Henry and if she was able to pick a bullet out of her head couldn't any demon shot in the chest just dig inside their host and pick out the bullet?

Yeah they probably could, however Devils trap bullets aren't exactly standard Anti-Demon weapons, it was sort of an emergency measure formulated by Henry and Dean as nothing else could stop Abaddon. Once shot he cut her to pieces rendering her unable to use, they also made sure not to give her her Arms back when they sowed her back together, its just it never occured to them that she could still manipulate them when they weren't attached to her body. General MGD 109 (talk) 19:21, November 30, 2013 (UTC)


 * I'd say yes, seeing as that's exactly what she did. -- ImperiexSeed, 5:11 PM, November 30th 2013


 * What the anon was asking was during before Abaddon was decapitated, though. Which is a valid question. I suppose it's a fault of the writers, or that Abaddon simply panicked. FTWinchester (talk) 23:34, November 30, 2013 (UTC)

Weather manipulation?
Shouldn't weather manipulation be moved down to mid-level powers seeing as Meg has demonstrated that power (albeit to a very limited extent) by creating a gust of wind in a church?


 * Now that you mention it, so did the demon possessing father GIl. FTWinchester (talk) 13:21, January 5, 2014 (UTC)

Unproven seraph weakness
This could also apply to Archangels, but in the weakness to angels section, it outright states that although the most powerful demons can overpower low tier angels (to the degree where they could be seen as supiriors to the angels, Alastair overpowered Castiel with pretty much no effort at all, even atfer being tortured severely) and it has never been even implied that seraphs could take on such demons, be that barely, easily and or with extreme difficulty.

When Abaddon fled Gadreel, it's obvious that she did not want to go up against an angel, yet if that was Lilith (unafraid of castiel in the same room as her) or Alastair (for obvious reasons) likely would have directly took on Gadreel, so that is implication that certain demons can take on angels of standard rank, but there is absolutely no evidence to suggest that any Seraph could stand upto the highest demons, so can that outright factual weakness be removed??

Princepurple (talk) 00:20, January 15, 2014 (UTC)

No, it can't. You're confusing the word speculation with an obvious, but unstated, fact. When Castiel was an angel, he could be overpowered by high-tier demons like Alastair and Lilith. Seraphs are much stronger than regular angels, and they can easily destroy any type of demon. Castiel, as a seraph, has killed groups of demons and was not bothered a bit when a demon army invaded in "The Man Who Knew Too Much." -- ImperiexSeed, 8:09 PM, January 14th 2014

That proves nothing, Crowley took out a nest of demon single handedly and king or not, he is nothing next to the strongest of demons, it's highly possible that iff going all out, Alastair could take on a 'nest' of angels, there is no proof that he would not beat a seraph as in show, no demons of that level have confronted or been confronted by a seraph, crowley, as king, with all the knowledge he has on angels, knowing full well of castiels seraph rank, was ready to take him on when weakened and stood up to naomi and even managed to easily escape her attempt of smiting her, and she was above castiel, she obviously could not prevent him escaping, and he is a crossroads demon with a power boost, there is no knowing what Alastair could have pulled out a seraph, if crowley has the brain to melt down an angel blade to make a gun, im sure Alastair would have already done so, and there is no saying if his obscure angel excorcising spell could work on a seraph or not, castiel, likely far older than the eldest demons seemed genuinely terrified that a demon could be unaffected by the demon touch, or later the knife even being telekinetially manipulated while in alastairs chest, and he still overpowered him.

But im sure if he had never displayed angel beating prowess you would have doubted any demon could take on any angel at all, it is highly possible that alastair and other top demons could at least survive and elude an angel better than crowley could, if crowley can effortlessly escape a seraph like beings wrath, and craft weapons that they fear, causing them to run, plus his arcane knowledge, that he would certainly be able to do much more in a cobat situation, at the very least, prevent a seraph from dealing any damage to them... i wouldn't be surprised if he would summon them, holy fire ring them and burn them with holy oil, like what was threatened of balthazar, and then either exorcise or kill them with an angel weapon, its basic logic based on crowley's witnessed capabilities.

and don't try saying crowley could survive where Alastir could not, im sure if Sam directed his powers at crowley he would easily have killed him, theres a much bigger apparent power difference between low and high power demons than there is between top demons and seraphs.

Princepurple (talk) 01:44, January 15, 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm sure he could, although he couldn't kill them (per his own admittance). You're right, there's no example of Alastair fighting a seraph and losing, but that doesn't tear down illogicality of what you're saying. Like I said, "Seraphs are much stronger than regular angels, and they can easily destroy any type of demon." Now while I don't know for certain the gap in rank between angel and seraph, my point is pretty obvious if you just look at the facts. Alastair makes it clear, twice, demons of even the highest rank, like himself or Azazel, couldn't kill even angels. That angel exorcism, I'd say, applies to all angelic beings except for maybe archangels. Ok, the fact that Naomi didn't prevent Crowley from teleporting doesn't at all discredit all her impressive feats. Lucifer didn't stop Castiel from teleporting the tenth episode of season five, but Lucifer is still much more powerful than him. -- ImperiexSeed, 8:58 PM, January 14th 2014


 * I think alastir implied that he could not kill an angel with his own powers or spells, but surely he would have simply used an angel blade? im assuming that Lilith being the oldest must have known about angel blades but perhaps had no way of getting one, crowley getting one simply because the circumstances surrounding more demons where on earth by that point in the show, but during liliths and alastairs time, most where in heaven, the blades with them, and im sure with a blade in hand, alastair certainly would kill as many angels as possible, but i think he could have gotten a blade if he really wanted it, he probably thought it too easy as he seemed to enjoy humiliating castiel, but he did somehow get deaths sythe, and than can kill angels so im sure his stating he can't kill them means simply from his own power, with the right tools such as a blade, im sure he could take on a seraph and live to tell the tale.


 * So i will accept that yes, seraphs can kill most demons easily, unless its a very very strong demon with good prep and support at the disposal and cannot kill such a demon without at least some effort, lucifer seemed to allow castiel to escape as he was sure his plans would work either way, whereas naomi seemed slightly confused when crowley escaped from her.


 * Princepurple (talk) 02:32, January 15, 2014 (UTC)


 * He didn't imply anything there; he made it clear, demons can't kill angels without at least an angel blade. And, even then, they'd have to get close enough to use it. Which, at full power, I find silly when in regards to a seraph. The seraph could teleport so long that the demon would eventually get tired. From your point of view that has already been proven to be illogical, what demon can't a seraph kill? -- ImperiexSeed, 10:23 PM, January 14th 2014

When were the first demons made?
So, as I said over on Crowley's Talk page, I've been working on revamped versions of Lilith's page (one including Companion Guide info as canon and one not) that are both written in in-universe biography format with citations included (I'm planning to do this with other characters as well). I'm trying to figure out a rough date I can put in for when Lilith, Cain, the Knights, and possibly Azazel and Samhain were all created by Lucifer. Now, assuming that the first demons were made out of the first anatomically modern humans (since he describes them as "the little hairless apes" at the point God first presented them to angels), they would have been made about two hundred thousand years ago. However, since I suck at math and BC vs. AD dates, I'd like your help settling something: I put the creation of modern humans by God, and thus the creation of the first demons (e.g. Lilith, Abaddon) by Lucifer, at around 198,000 BC. Would that be around the correct date for 200,000 years ago?--NaiflidG (talk) 04:32, January 19, 2014 (UTC)

Agree, disagree...?--NaiflidG (talk) 20:42, January 21, 2014 (UTC)

See anon's response in this blog. FTWinchester (talk) 20:57, January 21, 2014 (UTC)

Weird. So it looks like we're operating on a mash-up of evolution and the Bible. At least, I think they're including evolution--"The Man Who Would Be King" indicated that, right? Is there any other evidence of evolution in-show? Anyway, assuming that evolution is included in Supernatural-verse and that the humans were the AMHs two hundred thousand years ago, does anyone know if the 180,000 BC date would be correct?--NaiflidG (talk) 22:06, January 21, 2014 (UTC)

Healing?
Why don't all demons heal their vessels? Some clearly can as Ruby has been shot and stabbed and wasn't pouring blood out in following episodes. Meg healed her vessels broken bones until she was exorcised. Crowley has been shot at least three times and his vessels not trailing blood behind him. And yet, a trucker demon was shot in the head and he still was missing half his face later on. Abaddon didn't heal after being dismembered as you can still see the stitch marks when she attacks sam and crowley. The demon caring for famine still has an arm injury after a good time running from sam. Surely it would be an inconvience if bits of your vessel are falling apart and looking for a new one could take a while. Any thoughts?