Talk:Reapers

Rogue Reapers
"A new type of Reaper, referred to as a "rogue Reaper" appears inTaxi Driver. This type of Reaper takes mortals and souls between Earth and Heaven and Hell for a price and are visible without the necessity of being dead."

I don't think this is a real type, but more of an alignment, similar to how Gilda was a "good" fairy. It just describes how these reapers choose to work around the natural order and freelance for their own gain. To me, that does not indicate they are a separate kind of creature, because they are still basically the same, with the same ability. Other reapers could do the same, they just choose not to, because they would like to uphold the natural order, as their father would want them to. FTWinchester (talk) 02:59, June 15, 2013 (UTC)

I'm surprised Death even allows them to exist. Put that in the pile of "bad writing". L4D2 Ellis (talk) 03:13, June 15, 2013 (UTC)(logging back in)

Agreed. It wasn't like he was imprisoned like when Tessa was possessed by Azazel, so he obviously could have done something about Ajay. FTWinchester (talk) 04:44, June 15, 2013 (UTC)

Exactly. That and I think they should've just said that Crowley bound Ajay to take Bobby into Hell. It's not like reapers can't be bound. L4D2 Ellis (talk) 16:36, June 15, 2013 (UTC)

Oh, that'd work, too. I was thinking they could've used a fairy for it (since the leprechaun mentioned that they had a way of finding backdoors) and eliminate the whole "Crowley has a reaper working for him to drag people into Hell even when they don't deserve it" angle.--50.89.225.132 17:02, June 15, 2013 (UTC)

Mmhmm. L4D2 Ellis (talk) 17:18, June 15, 2013 (UTC)

I disagree including Fairies would have made how story even more confusing, Reapers specialise in the after life and transporting souls there the most likely candidates. As for why death allows it? Perhaphs it doesn't actually go agaist the natural order as that only seems to determine life, and as such Death simply tolerates some reapers breaking the rules. Or perhaps death is simply more lenient to his own children than he is to humans? --General MGD 109 (talk) 22:10, June 15, 2013 (UTC)

My point stands that "rogue" reeapers are still just reapers who are more carefree about their jobs, and that they are not a totally different class/type. FTWinchester (talk) 05:36, June 16, 2013 (UTC)

Or maybe he has more pressing matters on his mind; he implied in Appointment in Samarra that he knew where his ring was when Dean was attempting to bribe him, but didn't assume absolute power (as in, wasn't like "I know absolutely everything"). Gurgatory (talk) 14:05, June 18, 2013 (UTC)


 * In this, FTWinchester has hit the nail, directly on the head. Rogue reapers do not, in any way, describe a separate type of reaper, but a categorization. Likewise, Fallen Angels are not a separate class of Angel, but a categorization of their allegiance. -- ImperiexSeed, 12:44 PM, June 18th 2013


 * From what I got on Death's end, he didn't get the ring because he doesn't need it to have his powers. So he never really bothered to get it back. Getting back his ring is one thing, his reapers disrupting the Natural Order is another. Not really comparable.L4D2 Ellis (talk) 17:11, June 18, 2013 (UTC)


 * I always assumed he wanted it back simply because it was his. Like with his scythe, he doesn't need it to reap life. Plus, it would be irresponsible for Death to leave such power in a human's possession. -- ImperiexSeed, 1:17 PM, June 18th 2013