Talk:Big Bad

Main villain of Season 6
Crowley or Raphael? User, David Kaique 06:53, October 7, 2011 (UTC)

Definatly Cowley. Raphael was Castiel's main antaganist, but he wasn't a nig concern of sam and dean. Castiel harvelle 11:33, October 7, 2011 (UTC)Castiel Harvelle

In this case, the two were. User, David Kaique 21:42, October 10, 2011 (UTC)

Should we consider Castiel to also be a villain in Season 6? Regardless of how sympathetic his motives were, he was trying to open Purgatory and the boys ended up trying to stop him, so he may qualify.

Demons?
Should we really have Demons as the main villians for season three? One this page is for individual villains, second shouldn't we then include ghosts for the first two seasons, demons for the fourth season, angels for the fifth season, monsters for the sixth season, and Leviathans for the seventh season? Its either one or all. General MGD 109 21:44, May 25, 2012 (UTC)

Michael a villain?
There seems to be a lot of back-and-forth changes regarding Michael's status as a villain. Can we resolve this once and for all, please? -- MisterRandom2 14:32, May 27, 2012 (UTC)

Well he wasn't really a villain, he was more of a delliusional/anti hero, as he wasn't really a villain he can't be classed as a main villain, its simple logic. General MGD 109 20:51, May 27, 2012 (UTC)

he was however one of the winchesters greatest foes and technically is an enemy of sam and dean. plus zachariah is his servant, he's working through Michael. I don't feel the horsemen qualify as though powerful villains they each only appear once or twice, the other supporting villains appear multiple times.


 * Everybody, Michael's NOT a villain of season 5. How do you even classify him as a villain, what has he done to prove such? -- ImperiexSeed, 6:25 PM, May 27th 2012

He's shown willing to destroy the earth for th sake of fighting his brother, is an enemy of sam and deans, when crowley lists all the enemies that sam and dean have defeated along with all the others listed Micheal is one of them. he is the force responsable for the other enemies of the brothers: zachariah, raphael. He is equally as much as a supporting big bad as lucifer hallucination or bela.


 * No, he's really not (you CAN'T say as constant as hallucination of Lucifer). You got a point with Crowley's quote, in his comparison to villains. Anyhow, Michael is not 'bad' per se, as he's doing what he believes right. -- ImperiexSeed, 6:36 PM, May 27th 2012
 * Aren't they all? I mean just because you feel it's right doesn't make it so. Dictators throughout history believe their methods and goals were reasonanble and right but were really evil. I mean look at Hitler. I realise what you mean but he's one of the most repetitive enemies sam and dean have faced as he is the force that would be responsable for earths destruction even when lucifer asks not to fight, he refuses on the basis of what he feels is "right". that doesn't make him good, it makes him corrupt.


 * He didn't want to kill lucifer, he was only doing it because that is what god said, that is the way it was ment to go, Michael was ment to kill lucifer, and thus bring paradise, that's why he can't be classed as a villain, his methods, weren't for personal gain, or hatred or anything, he was just doing what was ment to be done, sure it was dark, but sometimes dark things happen, thats just the way they go.
 * And besides why should Michael care if people die, the way he probably see's it, if they good then there go to heaven and in which case there be free from all there strife, and hardships of life, and happy in paradise, And if not, well then it is there own fault.
 * Also Michael wasn't shown to be a villain, he only met Dean twice, and in neither of the those occasions did he do anything agaist them, in his first he told Dean simply why it occured, as well as saving his parents, and his brother, in the second, he just told him it wasn't his fight.
 * He may have been a questionable leader, but he still possesed many good traits, he was loyal, strong, brave and forgiving. All all he wasn't really a villain, at most he was an anti villain. General MGD 109 17:57, May 28, 2012 (UTC)
 * He still felt his brother was a monster and once paradise he and his brothers would become the new rulers of earth aswell as Heaven so it's partially personal gain and the theory of sure its dark but thats how it goes is so similar to lucifers perspective. lucifers plan was to restore the earth to its natural beauty just like michael except with michael humanity would still exist although it would be a tiny population, lucifer would kill them as he is disgusted by them. one his second occasion meeting dean he calls him a maggot and probably would have slaughtered him out of insolence if cas hadn't attacked him. Lucifer is strong, brave and suprisingly loyal as he does keep his word and never lies or tricks sam but lucifer is definately a villain. and to an extent lucifer is forgiving as he lets dean live twice and is willing to take in castiel. and michael's not forgiving as he refuses to forgive lucifer when lucifer offers to stand down. anti-villain is fair but villain isn't out of the question, he is simply a villain who justifes his actions with good intentions as many villains do.


 * True he had a bit of aggression with lucifer, but be fair, if they person you pratically raised, turned on you and your beloved father, and corrupted hundereds of your brothers and led to there deaths, wouldn't you be a bit angry? Okay he did have something to gain, but that wasn't a factor in it, he still didn't want to kill lucifer. Also you can't compare the two, everything Michael did, was because that's what his father said, he wasn't do anything for any personal gain, sure he never forgave his brother, but personally I think that's justified, and he still didn't want to kill him.
 * Everything Lucifer did, was out of his own pride and envy, he wanted to kill everyone because he was jealous, Michael didn't want to kill anyone one, it was simply a side affect of there battle, one that he clearly accepted. And another thing, Lucifer had no care for anyone, not even his own children, who worked to save him, to him they were meaningless, the only people he still cared about where his brothers. And what do you mean Lucifer doesn't lie or cheat? He only said he didn't lie or cheat, he lied to nick, saying he couldn't bring back his family, he lied to anyone he told his story, making him seem the villain, he lied as much as it suited him. He was simly cold evil in its simplesst form.
 * I'm not saying michael was that nice, but he wasn't evil, he was mearly doing what his father told him, he was mearly loyal to his father, lucifer had no loyalty, he killed anyone who got in his way, even his brothers, when he didn't need to. And you can't argue Michael isn't forgiving, he kept forgiving Zachariah after he continually falied, while both Lucifer and Raphieal killed anyone who failed them, he also forgave Uriel.
 * He wasn't a nice person, but he wasn't evil, so he can't be classed as a villain.General MGD 109 19:08, May 28, 2012 (UTC)


 * Michael believes in his father but is willing to please him at any cost, even if it means destroying his brother and billions of creatures that he is suppose to love by his father's will. Luicfer did out of envy and pride but convinces others he has nobler intentions which is what bad people do. They justify their actions with good intentions. Michael wasn't evil but he was bad and quatiflies as a big bad. Demons arn't lucifers children, they are his slaves and he made them as mockeries not as perfect creations. he killed cas in defense of michael and offered gabriel a chance to stand down. it's not justification but its something. He tries to defend himself by twisting the truth which is what all villains do, which is what michael does, they alter the truth to suit their beliefs. Michael didn't forgive uriel, he was dead straight after he betrayed heaven. zachariah was forgiven but like i said lucifer forgave cas which only shows both wanted to retain as much support as possible. He wasn't pure evil but he was arrogant, aggressive and was willing to do anything to get his own way which i think makes him qualify as a big bad.


 * Yes and he did have a number of negative charateristics, but as you said, he wasn't pure evil. And that's what seperates him from the others, and means he can't be classed as the big bad, you seem to keep missing the fact, that everything he did, he did because thats what his dad told him to do. He was told he had to kill Lucifer, and bring paradise to earth, that was what motivated him, sure he didn't really care much (if anything about humans) but he also didn't hold anything agaist them, all he wanted to do was do what his father wanted him to do, and under all the bad traits, he was simply doing it for that reason, he didn't hate or want to destroy anyone or anything, other than lucifer, and personally I think thats justictified. That is why he can't be classed as a big bad, to be a main villain he had to intentionally want to destroy and kill large numbers, he didn't, it was mearly a side affect of what he wanted. General MGD 109 19:13, May 29, 2012 (UTC)


 * You misunderstand me, apparently. Yes, basically, villains are "doing what they think is right", but, on my part, that was only a comparative notion.


 * We're in agreement, however: Michael is not a villain, and we both think so.

ImperiexSeed, 4:51 PM, May 29th 2012

Committing near genicide is never justifed. Michael is willing to kill billions just because his father commands it, which makes him no better than any other villain. zazhariah is only obeying Michael, jake is only obeying azazel, the horsemen are only obeying lucifer ect. Michael may have had good intentions as the angels would have paradise but at the cost of billions of humans and a large number of his brothers, including the one he was closest with. Michaels' motives are no better than anyothers. and though killing billions is only a side effect, azazel freeing lucifer was his main objective but lucifer destroying humanity was only a side effect but he is still a villain. and bela and jake were not pure evil either. both have shown some good intentons but both are ultimately evil despite these. Michael is a supporting big bad in my opinion because: he is willing to kill billions of humans and his brothers for no apparent reason other than god told him to, he is aggresive when he doesn't get his way, he is a recurring enemy of the brothers and even when he has to opportunity to end it without any bloodshed (when lucifer offers to stand down) he still insists on fighting and slaughter. Michael may believe he is doing right but so is lucifer from his perspective. Michael shows no conscience of his actions, and though his motives may be justified his actions are not and he is no better than lucifer ( though lucifer started it). Michael is easily a minor villain as though he demonstrates no hatred or disgust ( except towards lucifer) he is willing to destroy his brothers and billions of humans when he has the choice not to do so.

For these reasons Michael should qualify as a supporting big bad. He is not the most evil of sam and dean's enemies but he is still one of them.

What's with the introduction
What's the introduction talking about, how the main villain isn't always a charater, and is sometimes a natural force. All the main villians were charaters, if it means the horsemen, then although they were natural forces, they were still charaters, and individuals. Plus what they were doing wasn't natural, it was there (or lucifers) whims, either explain it or change it. General MGD 109 20:54, May 27, 2012 (UTC)

Do the Horsemen really qualify as supporting villains?
The horsemen are great villains but War and Famine both only appear in one episode each. Pestilence appears in two but though they are excellent villains they are only encountered once by the brothers. Really supporting villains should be those who appear repeatadly but are not the major threat/ concern. I mean, if they qualify why doesn't the Whore of Babalon or Anna in season five or Samhain in season 4 ect. ?
 * They function as supporting villains when you group them as a single collective entity (barring Death). By the way, could you please sign your posts.-- MisterRandom2 14:43, May 28, 2012 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. As a group it's fair but individually I disagree. The horsemen are important villains, I just felt Michael had a greater or as great a part to play as a supporting villain.--M. Clyde 16: 24, May 28, 2012.
 * That's why they're listed as a group and not individually. And as for the Michael thing, just let it go. The general consensus here seems to be that he doesn't count as a villain. -- MisterRandom2 15:54, May 28, 2012 (UTC)
 * Hey, I'm just saying it makes more sense, for the reasons stated above.

Why does Michael not qualify as a supporting big bad?
Michael is not pure evil, I get that, but surely an enemy so powerful deserves that title. And really there's no reason he shouldn't qualify as one. The fact he is a recurring enemy of Sam and Dean is enough in itself. He does feel he's doing the right thing but so do Lucifer and Gordon and Jake from their perspectives. Michael isn't pure evil but he is still willing to kill his brothers and billions of humans, not for the sake of peace but because his father wishes it. He is corrupt and if he wanted peace he would have excepted Lucifer's offer to stand down but he still insists on fighting and slaughter just to prove himself a good son. That may not be malicious but it's still selfish, aggressive and coldhearted. Michael shows he's aggressive as he also nearly attacks Dean after referring to him as a maggot. Michael does want paradise on earth because his father commands it but Lucifer wants paradise as well but he wants it free of humanity, where as Michael will allow what's left of humanity to live but he doesn't care for them. His motives are hardly better than Lucifers and Lucifer IS definately a villain. Michael is equally as much of a villain as Jake or Bela and is simply a villain who justifies his actions with good intentions, so why make him out to be a hero when he is as formidable a foe as half of Sam and Dean's other enemies.

I think we need to add Michael, Castiel and Samuel Cambell
I think we need to add Castiel, Samuel Cambell, and Michael because regardless of their motives they were in opposition to Dean and Sam and the did do terrible things. For example Michael he may not of been going around doing his own dirty work but he was giving Zacharaiah the orders. Michael also no doubt tortured Adam off screen to say yes to him he also erased Mary's memories of what happened to her and her son's and because of that she went right into that nursery and died thus making Michael as at fault as Lucifer was for telling Azaezel what to do the two may not have done it but they may as well of pulled the trigger.

Now Castiel I get people love the guy but he did a lot of terrible things in Season 6 he lied to Dean and Sam, he double crossed Crowley of all people and to make matters worse he killed his own angels for getting in his way. Castiel also broke down Sam's wall on purpose in an attempt to strong arm Dean. Then in season 7 he went on a genocidal rampage.

Samuel should also be placed as a supporting villain because he worked for Crowley and left Sam and Dean for dead. He also kept secrets from them. Granted he did it for his daughter but Dean even pointed out the problem with that and he didn't listen.

And to all who say they can't be considered villains because of their motives remember what War said? "Good intentions quick slide to hell buddy boy."MrAnonymous (talk) 06:38, August 16, 2012 (UTC)MrAnonymous

Okay I understand where your coming from, but I'm afraid we can not, where to begin, okay lets start with, no one's suggesting just because the lot of them had good intentions that they weren't villains, all where saying is they don't qualify as main villains.

True Michael was responsible for Zachariah, although his methods weren't exactly Michaels design as its constantly implied (and even stated) he mearly wanted results, he didn't care how they were gotten, which admitadly is a evil thing, as for Adam, he didn't require toture, Adam had already said yes to Michael, when being mislead by Zachariah. And Granted he did do that, but are seriously suggesting causing one persons death is enough to make you the main villain? All the others on this list personally killed dozens if not hundereds. The thing about Michael is he's not corely evil, he's mearly what you get when your driven to the point where, your most beloved brother betrays you, your father abandons you, and your put in charge of hunderds of others for thousands of years, with no idea what he wants or doesn't, therfore Michael simply follows what his father told him before he left, and its his riginess and fantic loyalty that leads to his defeat, but he wasn't fully evil.

Okay Castiel, granted he did do a lot of evil things, and his motives are lot less symperfetic than Micheals, Raphael takes over, and he wants to let them out to restart the appocalypse, admitadly he did several very evil things, but that doesn't quallify him for the main villain, any more than Sam doing all the evil things he did in season four qualifies him for being the main villain. As for season seven, you can't possibly suggest we include him as the big bad for that, I mean one episode of hostility, mostly brought on by the souls? As for season six, the two big bads mentioned are the ones responsible, Crowley was responsible for Castiels corruption, and Raphael led him to Crowley.

And Finally Samual Campbell, okay he also did some evil things, but we have to put all he did in perspective, all he was was simply the pawn of Crowley, he was manipulated simply by false promises, and love, I mean he even put it himself, he loved his daughter, why should he care about two strangers more than her? Expecially considering was more cold he was (at the time atleast). All in all he was evil at the end, but that still doens't quallify him as a secondary main agonist.

I assume this is the first of many long paragraphs, so he's my first stab, I await your response. General MGD 109 (talk) 18:47, August 16, 2012 (UTC)

As for Michael you pretty much described Lucifer and Raphael. Michael did kill people like in the bar scene with Zacharaiah. He also probably would have killed his own underling if it meant getting Dean to say yes this was confirmed by Zachariah's panicked reaction to Dean's condition to saying yes. Also with Adam having already saying yes we've seen with Dean that this doesn't mean anything. Dean was willing to say yes that's why he was able to kill The Whore of Babylon. Then soon afterwards he changed his mind. This implies that saying yes has to be at the very moment of possession and not just a "Okay you said yes now I can take you whenever I want." The reason why Raphael could return to his vessel was because he already used his vessel.

Castiel I concede that there are similarities between Sam and Castiel's situations but Sam how do I put this he was flying half blind with Ruby(wolf in sheeps clothing) as his co-pilot. Castiel even admits to not trusting Crowley and knowing it was probably a mistake from the beginning so he wasn't really flying half blind. The difference is Castiel double crossed his own demon to which Crowley said "I don't even break contracts this big!"(Personally I'll believe it when I see it.) He also outsmarted Raphael and Crowley in getting the souls and ultimately at the end he was literally last villain standing and to be honest when I think of the Main Villain of S6 I just picture Castiel at the end saying "Profess your undying love for me your lord or I will destroy you".

I've gotta admit I sort of agree with you on Samuel Cambell the more I think about it he didn't really have a impacting roll in fact Soul Less Sam was more of a supporting villain in my oppinion. Samuel even stated what he did pales compared to Soul Less Sam and Soul Less Sam made it to the Season Finale which automatically puts him in the running I guess. Now I'm thinking we should make a page for Soul Less Sam.MrAnonymous (talk) 21:59, August 16, 2012 (UTC)MrAnonymous

Okay that went a lot better than I expected, I'm glad you agree with me on Samuel Campbell, but I wouldn't attempt making another page for souless sam, there already has been one, and it was removed only a few hours after it was put up, I mean even he stated, "Same mind, same heart, same likes, same taste in music," (might not be exact but I haven't seen the episode in a while).

Okay onto Michael, I dissagree with you stating my argument is for Lucifer and Raphael, Raphael was just a big jerk (with maybe two redeaming features), and Lucifer? Don't get me started, all his talk about being the victim was hogwash, all he did, he did simply out of Pride and spite, he betrayed his family, his father, his brothers, everyone all because, his father said that he liked Man better than angels (granted not a nice thing to say, but still as Gabriel pointed out, he was right, as atleast men strive to be better, while angels don't really care about that sort of thing.) And for that reason he began a war, that led to the deaths of his own kind? If Castiel could spur up so much damage on his own, imagine what the devil did to heaven. I mean if he had one, what do you think were the chances of survival for all those (except perhaphs the archangels,) who had joined him? Exactly Lucifer was, is and always will be the devil. Michael on the other hand is a generally symperphetic charter, I mean if the person you loved more than any one, with expection, betrayed you out of such a simple matter how would you feel? And then you know for the next thousand years or so you will one day have to kill them, well I think you can imagine that has to hurt hard, not to mention your own father who you fanatically followed, suddenly runs off without even a thank you? I'm surprised Michael didn't turn out worse. I also think your argument generally fits what I said, "he just wants results, he doesn't care how he gets them," but I will admit I was wrong about the saying yes bit. But at the end of day, in comparison, was his wants really that unjustified? Sure he was intending to do horrible things, but none of it was out of hate, or personal gain, it was all simply out of loyalty to an absent father, and that means he can't qualify for a main villain.

Ok onto Castiel, you make some valid points, he was doing worse than sam, and it was clear that he had walked to the gates of hell them selves by the end, but as I already said, he was driven to it, I mean if Raphael won the appocalypse restarted, so in his opion it was all or the world, and when you have that at stake, you do things without thinking them through, and Crowley was the one who drove him to what he did, he was the catalyst, sure castiel cheated him, but I'm betting Crowley would have been equally happy to stab him in the back the moment he got the chance. Also Sam was equally unsure at the begging, but he like castiel simply focusd on the postives, and the bigger picture, oblivious to what it was turning him into. I admit if he had kept that motive he had at the end of the sixth season, then heck he would be up there just under Roman (this is on my list so you don't have to agree.) For that reason he doesn't really quallify for the main villain, although his argument is looser than Michaels. General MGD 109 (talk) 23:06, August 16, 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok, people. Look, Castiel's quite similar to Michael's motive, but both were not evil/malevolent (like Demons or pagan Deities), per-se. Michael was just abiding by his father's original wish, to destroy Lucifer. Castiel, being just a unworthy turd to Raphael, couldn't possibly stand up to Archangel Raphael, so he needed an ally, which just happened to be Crowley cause he didn't feel right bothering Dean. So, yeah, he made some poor choices, but he wasn't evil. -- ImperiexSeed, 7:27 PM, August 16th 2012

You make some valid arguments about Castiel however he was willing to hurt Sam and look at the way he talked to Dean "I'm an angel your just a man." He also lied to them and let Crowley torture someone and all he can say to Bobby and the boy's is "I'm sorry Crowley got carried away." But I do see where your'e coming from and Castiel while being a villain probably can't be a main villain so I guess S6 didn't really have final boss villain.

Now on to Michael I don't see him as a good guy at all. He didn't even acknowledge Gabriel's death or that his own brother killed him. Also his excuse is "I'm a good son." I see Lucifer and Michael as two sides of the same coin. In other words Michael is Joseph Stalin and Lucifer is Hitler.

Michael is as spoiled as his brother he made it clear before going into the pit that he wouldn't let anyone rob him of his destiny showing that at the core of his heart(metaphorically speaking) that all he cares about is glory. Even when Lucifer of all people pleaded for them to just walk off the chess board and avoid the entire battle Michael refused calling his own brother a monster. Also it's been confirmed that Michael had along with Lucifer been torturing Sam(probably Adam to) in the pit. Does that sound like a good guy to you?

Also going by your logic Lucifer couldn't be considered a main villain as he never went after Sam directely in S5 minus Hammer of the Gods but can you really say Michael wouldn't go after them himself if he could? Most of the time he(Lucifer) had his demons and Meg (who were like his own Zachariah) do most of the grunt work. A demon stated the situation perfectly to Sam and Dean (To Sam) "We're not supposed to hurt you." (To Dean)"But Hurting you is encouraged." Michael did the same thing only in reverse. Actually I think that while the boys were in heaven Zachariah planned to torture both of them.

Besides most of the time Lucifer wasn't really doing anything or making threats against Sam himself because he was taking the more manipulative route, Michael on the other hand was very demanding and took the more direct and forceful route not even trying to win Dean over which is probably why Lucifer won in the alternative future.

Now you say Michael only cared about results? Sending the sadistic angel Zachariah after them with the orders "Do what ever you want I don't care just get me results." along with death being the price of failure is very evil and sends the message he's willing to do anything himself it's no different from hiring a hitman to do your dirty work. Like I said Lucifer and Michael are two sides of the same coin just like Daleks(who kill anything they deem as impure) and Cybermen(who force their way of life on to people removing any and all free will). At the end of the day Michael and Lucifer employed the same tactics and in the end both only cared about getting what they wanted.

MrAnonymous (talk) 00:04, August 17, 2012 (UTC)MrAnonymous
 * So, he, Castiel, got a little cocky (in saying he's an angel and Dean just a simple man), but again, he's not bad. Dude, Michael's the Leader of all of Heaven, he's a busy guy. Plus, it was far into the Apocalypse when Gabriel died, so in essence he was preoccupied. And Michael didn't exactly tell Zachariah, oh "do whatever you want". Zachariah went ballistic, Michael just didn't intervene. Michael, spoiled? No, Lucifer was God's favorite. Uh, Lucifer is a monster. -- ImperiexSeed, 9:26 PM, August 16th 2012

And Michael isn't a monster? Not intervening when your dog gets off the leash is the same as giving the order. Raphael and Michael were tyrants that's all there is to it. Think I'm wrong? Look at Anna and Castiel in season four and five. If an angel dare break even the slightest rule it meant death or severe punishment and brain washing. Saying that Michael isn't a villain because he was the leader of heaven is the same as saying Sadam was a great leader because he was the guy in charge. Even Castiel said Heaven was corrupt with Michael as it's leader and Raphael's idea of how heaven should be was the same as Michael's regime.MrAnonymous (talk) 05:04, August 19, 2012 (UTC)MrAnonymous

If I may interject, but to my understanding, there seems to be some confusion on the concept of antagonist and villain as being one and the same. However, that is not the case as the definition for antagonist goes as follows:

1. opponent: somebody or something opposing or in conflict with another.

2. character in conflict with hero: a major character in a book, play or movie whose values or behavior are in conflict with those of the protagonist or hero.

As you can see neither definition refers to an antagonist as a villain nor regarded as being evil. With that in mind, it basically applies to anybody or anything that have opposed Sam and Dean over the course of Supernatural, regardless of alignment. Yes, a villain is normally the antagonist of a story or movie more often than not, but it's flawed logic to assume only they can be as such. The antagonist is not always a villain, nor is the protagonist always a hero. With that said, I fully agree with Mr. Anyonmous that Castiel, Michael and Samuel Campbell should be added. 107.194.23.166 06:16, August 19, 2012 (UTC)

Okay we've already agreed to drop campbell, because he was nothing more than a pawn of Crowley, manipultead out of love for his family. So I won't state a case for him, well I recently rewatched a few episodes, including the finals of season five and season six, so I think I've got a few points to counter.

First on Michael, I think your statement that he is after Glory, is a misinterpratation, I mean he even states he doesn't truthfully believe the day is here, and you can tell that he is uncomfatable doing it, but mostly he doesn't want glory, he turns down his offer to "step off the cheessboard," out of two reasons, loyalty and hatred, he's still loyal to his absent father, who said this is how it had to go, just as Dean never questioned his father, Michael isn't questioning his, and for the other reason, as much as he still loves lucifer, and its clear he still does, I mean he doesn't instantly attack lucifer, he lets him talk, he agrees its good to see him again, and you can tell that he truthfully means it, he also pauses after Lucifers speach, and you can tell that he is actually considering the idea, and he's even tempted to take it, but he turns it down because what he's doing is the right thing.

Maybe not the best thing, but in esesnce killing the devil is a good thing, I mean he even states it, they were happy once, they were together, and then Lucifer betrayed Michael, who loved him dearly, he betrayed his father, who loved him the most of all angels, he betrayed them all, simply out of pride, on a not really important matter, he brought everything on him, he destroyed there very relationship, and then to the end he has the audacity, to try and blame it all on a father who loved him more than anyone (well untill man came along, but the point still stands) can you truthfully say that Michael doesn't have the right to be angry at him?

Thats all Michaels motives are, he wants to be a good son, he's doing what his dad told him was right, sure he uses darks methods, sure he's a villain, he stopped being a good person centuries ago, but he isn't pure evil, everything he did, everything was entirely out of loyalty, he was just doing what was ment to be done, we have to look at this in the big picture, I mean Lucifer destroyed everything out of pride, he caused the deaths of some many other angels, so much destruction, so much chaos, entirely out of pride, and now he wants to destroy everything there is, purely out spite. Is stopping him really evil? And sure people will die, a lot of them, but then again, in the supernatural unvierse, nearly everyone goes to paradise on there deaths, so is it really that bad? Atleast thats presumably how Michael thinks. Michael might not be a good person, but he's not pure evil, all his dark acts are done out of good intentions. And for that reason he can't be considered a big bad. The big bad is simply the most recuring villain, it has to be a villain who's motives are only to aid themselfs, how do any of Michaels motives aid himself?

Now onto Castiel, sure he did a lot of bad things, but he wasn't evil, I mean he spends a whole episode questioning what he has done, and praying for answers, how many other villains would do that? And to the end, or atleast just before the end, he's still trying to stop them get hurt, he only his evil things, so he can stop Raphael, as I've already said, if Raphael wins, then the entire events of season five are for nothing, the end will still come, so he simply focuses on trying to stop that.

As for cheating crowley, is that a bad thing? Is it really safe to hand the king of hell that much power? I mean with that much power, he destroy angels, destroy anything, is handing that much power to a crazed, sociopath a good idea? No, so why is refusing to do it a bad one? Well what do you say to that? And don't expect a reply for a little while. General MGD 109 (talk) 21:26, August 19, 2012 (UTC)
 * I confidently agree with General MGD 109. Cas not handing oever even half of all of Purgatory's souls was very responsible on his part, as with such power he could dominate Hell, destroy Angels and leash every Hellhound around his thumb, control a vast percentage of the world, so yeah, Cas did a good choice by not doing that. As admin of this wiki, I firmly say, "Michael and Castiel won't be put as villains on this page, and I'll think about Samuel Campbell. -- ImperiexSeed, 7:11 PM, August 19th 2012


 * With all do respect, ImperiexSeed, I am a little bothered by how you said "As admin of this wiki, I firmly say, "Micheal and Castiel won't be put as villains on this page, and I'll think about Samuel Campbell." as I feel like you are implying that your status as an admin gives you the authority to alone have the final say on the discussion. 107.194.22.222 18:14, August 20, 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm sorry. But as admin, I have the right to end a discussion. Look @ the policies and rules if in doubt. -- ImperiexSeed, 7:20 PM, August 20th 2012


 * Yes, you do have the right to end a discussion as admin, however as we are apparently deadlocked (2 users in favor, 2 users oppose), deciding in favor of yourself by default is an inadvertent misuse of that right. In order to come to a decision we can all agree upon, we would need a neutral party (another admin) to end the discussion impartially. 107.194.22.222 02:20, August 21, 2012 (UTC)


 * Here I've got an idea, I think will end this, what if ImperiexSeed, you create a poll blog, stated "who should we add as a new big bad?" With the catagories, Michael, Castiel, Both, Neither, and add a bit of information, as well as a link to this page, and a encouragement that they read this before they vote. We also add a link to that blog at the bottem of this page, and we keep the voting open, till the next episode of supernatural airs, then its closed, and which ever catagory gets the most votes, wins, thus ending this argument, in a democratic way. What do you think? General MGD 109 (talk) 19:56, August 22, 2012 (UTC)
 * Why would I make a poll? The "which one's stronger, Azazel or Lilith" one didn't get resolved, and neither will this one. People have their own opinions, therein there will always be disagreements, so conducting a poll is pretty pointless. -- ImperiexSeed, 6:43 PM, August 22nd 2012

Supporting Villain > Secondary Villain
I have never encountered the term 'supporting villain' before, and it sounds a bit weird. Can't we just use secondary villain instead? Also consider the fact that some of the 'supporting' villains even consider the Big Bad to be his/her enemy (i.e., Eve vs. Castiel vs. Crowley, Zachariah vs. Lucifer). FTWinchester (talk) 00:08, January 1, 2013 (UTC)



Naomi
I think Naomi should be placed as "supporting villain" of the eighth season. David, January 22, 2013

I agree, but I also think its to early to declear her as one, so far she's only been outwardly agonistic in one episode. General MGD 109 (talk) 22:02, January 22, 2013 (UTC)


 * And her antagonistic role in the last episode is arguable, even. If she was trying to protect the angel tablet, she may indeed be doing it for the greater good of her brethren. FTWinchester (talk) 14:22, January 23, 2013 (UTC)


 * If a character is acting antagonistic (suspfically towards the protagonist), than he/she would effectively be classified as an antagonist, regardless of his/her intentions being for the greater good. Antagonist is a neutral term, despite generally referring to a villain. With that said I agree with David, Naomi should be placed as supporting villian as it's apparent she will be a recurring character throughout the season. 108.247.150.225 03:58, January 24, 2013 (UTC)

Gordon?
Why are we including Gordon as a main antagonist? i mean yeah he appeared in three episodes as a serious threat but he only appeared once in season 3 and he doesnt really contribute to the plot. He's no more of a main antagonist than dean's crossroads demon.

I agree with you, but lets wait till see if anyone else doesn't before removing him. General MGD 109 (talk) 21:01, February 13, 2013 (UTC)

Sure thing.

Naomi?
Should we really be putting Naomi as a secondary villain seeing as we're not including Castiel or Michael? I mean has she really done anything that evil so far? Ok she's corrupted Castiel and Heaven and attempted to kill humans to get the angel tablet but that's hardly any more evil than Michael corrupting Heaven and wiping out humanity to kill Lucifer or Castiel killing Balthazar and destroying Sam's wall. So it doesn't really make sense to include Naomi but exclude Castiel and Michael.


 * Well, she is a villain to Castiel, and, inadvertently, the Winchesters. At this point, she shouldn't be apart of the listings of the Big Bad. Someone, remove it. -- ImperiexSeed, 5:19 PM, April 30th 2013
 * I will do it. General MGD 109 (talk) 21:24, April 30, 2013 (UTC)
 * I think that Massacar in the last episode, certainly places her ahead of Michael and Castiel, so now can she be included.General MGD 109 (talk) 19:04, May 2, 2013 (UTC)

Secondary big bads?
Why are Edgar and the horsemen secondary big bads? I mean surely both big bads and secondary big bads have to be recurring enemies of the Winchesters who make a significant contribution to the main plot line of that season or the main story. Like Alastair and Ruby makes sense as Alastair is responsible for breaking the first seal and Ruby manipulated Sam to break the last. But Edgar doesnt actually do anything that really contributes to the story and while the horsemen are helping Lucifer bring the Apocalypse, so is the whore of babylon and the demons of Hell. Plus each horseman only appears for a maximum of three episodes while most secondary big bads appear in at least four.


 * Edgar didn't fit the sect of a secondary Big Bad, I'm unaware why that's there. The other Horsemen (War, Famine and Pestilence) definitely hold a poise of secondary villains of the fifth season. The fifth season pictates the event called the Apocalypse, and they're, in a sense, heralds of the Apocalypse. -- ImperiexSeed, 2:43 PM, May 4th 2013
 * Edgar did kidnapp Kevin, he was also the first Leviathan they faced, and gave them the first taste of what leviathans were like. Does that count for anything? General MGD 109 (talk) 19:41, May 4, 2013 (UTC)
 * Does that count for anything? Uh, no. To be a secondary villain, the character, by definition, has to be secondary to the Big Bad. -- ImperiexSeed, 4:00 PM, May 4th 2013


 * But the the whore also is a herald of the apocalypse so why are the horsemen more so as both contibute towards the downfall of humanity?
 * Yeah but the horsemen play a much greater role, all the whore did was almost dam a few souls. The Horsemen caused carnage and mayhem on a collasal scale. If they hadn't been stopped, just imagine the damage they could have done. General MGD 109 (talk) 00:31, May 5, 2013 (UTC)


 * But from that perspective, Julia Wright's demon should be there as it created the Anti christ and if it hadnt have been stopped think of the carnage then. Besides the Whores method would have granted Hell and therefore Lucifer more souls making him far more powerful. So again the level of carnage is a bit irrelevant.
 * How? I don't think Lucifer gains power from souls, he's an Archangel not a demon or a standard angel, he was atleast every bit as powerful before there was a hell. You have a point about the Anti-christ, but as he didn't turn evil so he can't be counted, and Julia Wrights's demon didn't play any part other than conveing him so she can't be counted. The Horsemen were Lucifers on teh ground forces of destruction, they came to him directly after he rose and they caused the majority of his destruction. Stating they don't provide a collective role that fits the part of the secondary antagonist, is simply nonsence. General MGD 109 (talk) 17:46, May 5, 2013 (UTC)


 * They do play a role towards the apocalypse and the fact jesse turn out alright is no different from the fact that the horsemen were defeated. Raphael was going to absorb Purgatory's souls so clearly archangels do gain power with souls. The horsemen are important but so are many other Apocalyptic tools.


 * Um, yes it is, The Horsemen had already started there rampage, and where stopped before they could cause any serious damage. Jesse never stepped onto the field, he was never a player in the game. Good point about Raphael, but still Lucifer was just as powerful before there was a hell, and he never absorbed the souls from hell, as they were still there in season six. The Horsemen where the most dangerous and powerful beings under lucifer, who else did Lucifer go to so much trouble to gain, or give such an active role. They played the greatest role in apocalypse, the Whore only played a minor role. General MGD 109 (talk) 20:12, May 5, 2013 (UTC)


 * The Babylonian Whore was not a secondary villain. She was A villain. Julia Wright's demons was not a secondary villain. She, too, was just a villain. Neither of them belong on this page. -- ImperiexSeed, 4:35 PM, May 5th 2013


 * Im not saying they do, im just stating that i dont think the horsemen do either. The horsemen are also just villains as they are not really recurring villains and while important to the Apocalypse, so are many other villains. None of the horsemen served as a major role towards the main plot and weren't really recurring villains. They are no more secondary big bads than the whore or julia wrights demon. And seeing as we're not including Castiel or Michael as main villains, I don't see why the horsemen or Edgar should count.


 * Well were not including them, as you have to have evil intentions to be the big bad, at the end of the day regardless of what they did, neither Michael or Castiel did anything for personal gain, Michael did it out of loyalty and duty, Castiel did what he did in his quest for freedom. I also question your statement of them playing no role in the serious more than any other villain, they had a huge role, they were lucifer's agents of chaos, there influence was first felt when he was risen in the first episode of the season, and last felt in the second to last episode. They were also behind impliementing the croatoan virus, his method of extermination, they did a lot of chaos. Saying they don't count doesn't hold water. General MGD 109 (talk) 17:21, May 8, 2013 (UTC)


 * From every villain's perspective they're actions aren't selfish and actuall Castiel confesses his actions were partially due to pride and arrogance. Good intentions dosen't justify evil acts. Lucifer believes he's doing what he does to prove a point about God's plans. Eve believes she just standing up for her children. Jake believes he's just protecting himself and his family. Good intentions still makes you a villain.


 * The characters the Whore of Babylon and Julia Wright's demons will not be added to this page! They simply do not fit the criteria to warrant a presence on this page. The remaining Horsemen (War, Famine and Pestilence) are staying, because they served as vocals or implementations of Lucifer's chaos. And Michael was not a villain - he was not evil. He was abiding by his Father's initialized wish, to destroy Lucifer. He's the model of a perfect son. He would do whatever his Father told him to do. And Castiel, mind you, was strategically trying to spare humanity from a second Apocalypse. -- ImperiexSeed, 4:06 PM, May 8th 2013


 * I'm not saying the whore or julia demon should be added. If you insist of keeping the horsemen then i'll live but i still think edgar should be removed. Eve is the model of a perfect mother and is still a villain so your comment about Michael makes no sense. Michael is willing to kill his brother and half of humanity just because his dad says so. Thats not a perfect son, thats a perfect warrior which isnt always a good thing. Yes but Cas killed multiple innocents to do so and caused another one anyway.


 * Well, I'm currently unaware who put Edgar. True, but that's not why she's a villain, so my comment does make sense. To an extent, I agree. Michael should have a personality of his own and not just be a robot of God. But, I'm a Christian, and I know that, in some sense, we're to be soldier and warriors of God, and should revere his authority. But, God's Will is good and we should trust him. I think Michael understands this to a certain ratio. -- ImperiexSeed, 4:43 PM, May 8th 2013


 * I respect your beliefs but God's portrayal in supernatural is not identical to that in religion and i feel he is a less sympathetic character. Michael is a villain who does justify his actions and believs he is doing the right thing but like eve and castiel is still a villain. Disregard for human life is a villainous trait regardless of orders given. Michael isn't pure evil, nor is castiel or bela or jake but through arrogance and disregard for others, they have become villains.


 * Yes, you're right, inverse, Chuck (God) is rather uncaring and uninvolved. So, I guess, we can't base that trait off of Biblical evidence. I mean, by Joshua's comment alone, it's clear that God simply does not care. Even look at what Balthazar said: "God's not coming back." -- ImperiexSeed, 4:55 PM, May 8th 2013


 * Exactly, and through that basis i think its reasonable to say that Gods orders cannot be wrong and/ or immoral. Therefore Michaels desperation to be a good son might blind his morality and therefore make him a villain, just as eve sees no wrong in killing humanity to save her children or Castiel sees no wrong in betraying his friends to beat Raphael.


 * Yes but as I said, Neither Castiel or Michael were opperatring for evil methods, both weren't even opperating to help themselves, Sure Michaels a dullisional Fanatic with Daddy issues, but he's still a loyal son, who didn't even want to do any of this, he was simply doing what his dad told him, besides if he didn't then Lucifer would have destroyed all of humanity, I'm pretty sure a few million to save billions isn't a unreasonable sacrifice (a tragic one maybe) but not an unreasonable one. And Castiel went off the deep end in a big way, but all he wanted to was to save people from another apocalypse. Bela and Jake however opperated solely to serve themselves, plus I think Jake was showing signs of going evil, he murdered Sam to save himself, betrayed humanity to make himself rich, and was more than happy to murder innocent people to achieve his goals. Bela's more sympathetic, but she was willing to sell out those who tried to help her simply for herself, both of them opperated through greed, not though duty or kindness.
 * Plus I find Eve questionable, sure she cared about her children, but she was a lot more manevolant than Michael, she forced even her vegan children to kill, and to hunt and to infect. Not to mention slaugtered dozens to make more monsters, and sadistically enjoyed them suffering. She might love her children but she's still a sociopathic misatrophobe, Michael on the other hand didn't kill unless there was need to kill, not that he wouldn't kill. General MGD 109 (talk) 21:02, May 8, 2013 (UTC)

True but when Lucifer offered to walk of the board and stop it all, michael refused and provoked a fight on the basis its not what god said would happen so thats pretty psychotic when you consider billions of lives were at stake. And it would be more than ten million according to Zachariah. Besides Michael isnt killing Lucifer for humanity. zachariah states that the angels will inherit the earth afterwards, just humanity wont be exterminated unlike lucifers plan.


 * Eve cared about her children, but she didn't have a problem manipulating them. So, yes, Eve was sadistically malevolent. But how was she psychopathic? -- ImperiexSeed, 5:05 PM, May 8th 2013


 * No i meant Michael is psychopathic as the death total on the human side is irrelevant from his perspective.


 * If he didn't fight then Lucifer would wipe out all of Humanity, is that really better than Losing ten million? I don't think so, I never said he was killing him for humanity thats simply a bonus, he's simply being loyal and stopping lucifer before he wipes out humanity as his dad said he had to. As for Eve, her reactions to the Jefferson Starships ripping people appart is pretty psycopathic. General MGD 109 (talk) 21:12, May 8, 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes but he could have simply said yes when lucifer offered to stop and therefore have saved everyone and no one would have been at risk. Michael still refuses and is willing to kill the ten million rather than just forgive Lucifer and call the whole thing quits


 * He was offering to stop the fight between them, not to stop murdering humanity, he made it very clear that was intention, he simply didn't want to fight his brother. If Michael refuses, humanity's dead, and Lucifer moves on to heaven. Not to mention he would have disobeyed his father. General MGD 109 (talk) 21:16, May 8, 2013 (UTC)


 * No, he wasn't going to fight Lucifer for humanity. That's simply nonsense, really. He was going to kill Lucifer because God told him to. That, basically, was the only reason. Yes, like I said, he didn't mind manipulating her children to achieve an end. But psychopathic, that's a little iffy. But whatever. -- ImperiexSeed, 5:16 PM, May 8th 2013
 * Is it just me or is this argument decaying? General MGD 109 (talk) 21:19, May 8, 2013 (UTC)


 * It's just you. -- ImperiexSeed, 5:21 PM, May 8th 2013
 * Its just the fact were debating something different to what we started on. General MGD 109 (talk) 21:24, May 8, 2013 (UTC)


 * Lucifer states that he will walk of the chessboard and end it all. that include the fight and the apocalypse. Lucifer would be back in heaven. humanity ignored and no mass slaughter. But because god orders it he is willing to kill his brother without question. That's pretty dark, especially when your brother is begging for forgiveness. even if it is lucifer


 * I don't know, its a bit of an asumption thats what he ment, I mean ending it all may end his fight with Michael, but that doesn't mean he wouldn't slaugther humans, after all he generally hates humanity. I admit it is a pretty dark thing to do, but as Michael pointed out Lucifer caused all this in the first place, so him being less trusting harldly seems that unwaranted. General MGD 109 (talk) 21:32, May 8, 2013 (UTC)


 * I think its fair to say Lucifer would know Heaven wouldnt accept him if he continued to slaughter gods favourite beings. He also hates pagan gods but i doubt he wouldve slaughtered them just on that basis. Killing humanity is just Lucifer breaking gods stuff cos he wants to get what he wants: forgiveness and acceptance. Once he's got that, why bother with humanity. Yes but i think trusting lucifer would be reasonable when billions are at stake.


 * I don't really think he cares what Heaven thinks, he only cares about the other Archangels, he has already tried to overthrow it by this point. Plus his motives for murder seem pretty unessesary, he didn't need to do any of that then, he could simply got out of the cage gone back to heaven and told everyone "dad was wrong, I'm not going to destroy humanity" instead he simply went along with it, because he hates humanity, he murders mass numbers for no reason, your example of pagan gods seems odd, as he only slaughtered them out of disjust and annoyance, if he's that brutal for those reasons is it really a good idea to trust him? Plus who are you going to think about first, from Michaels perspective, your own kind or some distant relative who kill each other everyday. General MGD 109 (talk) 21:43, May 8, 2013 (UTC)


 * Michael doesnt care about humanity but heavens hardly at risk because lucifers in heaven. he could attack it at anytime if he really wanted. Lucifer knows that Heaven would rebel against Michael if Lucifer was just taken in and continued to destroy their fathers creations. They were already willing to rebel on the basis that Michael wanted the apocalypse hence the keeping it quiet. Lucifer's a spoilt child. Children dont calmly say "dad's wrong, i;ll wait for your verdict". He lashes out at humanity cos its a big tantrem. But in being forgiven he'd wouldnt need to continue it cos he'd have what he wants


 * He had all he wanted in the first place, and he still destroyed it out of pride, do you really think anyone would except him back in Heaven again? He raised the place in a temper tantrum and was forcibly thrown out by Michael. Besides I think were going off topic. General MGD 109 (talk) 21:52, May 8, 2013 (UTC)


 * We are a little. But he didnt after his rebellion. And luicfer never tried to destroy earth before his imprisonment only after. If Michael had let him into heaven then he might (probably would) have stopped. Michael through lucifer out because god said so and that was because lucifer refused to love humanity, not because he tried to destroy them.


 * I'm not arguing he did, I'm arguing Michael did everything he did out of loyalty, duty and such, not out of selfish motives. General MGD 109 (talk) 21:57, May 8, 2013 (UTC)


 * And i'm not disputing that. I'm simply saying that Michael while loyal and having good intentions is still an antagonist as good intentions pave the road to hell (figuretively). Villains can believe theyre doing right and be justifiable but they are still villains. Michael isnt selfish but in order to prove himself a good son he is willing to do some pretty morally questionable things which i think does make him a villain. He is the force behind heaven and is an antagnoist towards sam and dean and (indirectly) humanity.


 * And I'm not disputing that he is a villain, I'm stating he's not the big bad, because he isn't motivated by greed or ambition, but loyalty and duty. Plus I'm also unsure if him being so casual about killing is such a bad thing, considering how the afterlife in supernatural works. General MGD 109 (talk) 22:03, May 8, 2013 (UTC)


 * Well thats like saying monsters are being generous when they eat people. I would say to an extent that wanting to prove himself a good son is ambitious and to be fair azazel's mission is fueled by loyalty and duty not greed or ambition. Likewise with Lilith. So i would say that is questionable. I'll admit a bit broad minded but it's still a point.


 * I not saying that, I'm just saying its not so bad anymore, after all eternity in paradise isn't really that bad. You have a point with Azazel (though his constant other evil deads, disqualify him) but Lilith's motives seemed more self related, she was doing it simply to create chaos.  If you don't bye that, the differance is they both did evil things, and a lot of them not to further there quest but simply because they enjoyed it. Michael was only willing to do evil things through loyalty. General MGD 109 (talk) 22:13, May 8, 2013 (UTC)


 * I see your point but I still think that Azazel demonstrates that loyalty in the wrong belief still means they can qualify as a big bad. Regardless of how sadistic he is, he is still loyal to his "father" and is willing to do whatever lucifer says to do his duty as a faithful follower. I'll admit loyalty isnt an issue with lilith but she has some commitment to her duty. And when you take in stuff like torturing adam and threatening dean or just his general lack of care for humans, i think Michael should qualify as a scendary big bad as he is ultimately a major recurring antagonist against the winchesters and is one of their most formidable foes.


 * You have a point, he is definately a villain, he definatly did a lot of morally questionable things to further his goal. But at the end of the day, thats the only reason he did them. Where Azazel just did evil things for the heck of it, sure he was loyal to his father, sure he was following his orders, but he also did a lot of things without any need or revelance to the plan (burning mothers alive, toturing dean, slaughtering dozens etc.). General MGD 109 (talk) 22:27, May 8, 2013 (UTC)


 * Not quite sure how we've arrived at this debate but I take it that means you are against Michael being listed as a secondary big bad? I'll admit Azazel did things for the heck of it but some other big bads did it just to further a goal. But i'm guessing my debating hasn't convinced you?


 * No I'm afriad it hasn't, thats the funning thing about debates they seem to evolve on there own. Yes, they all did, a lot of them also did it for the heck of things to. Lilith went through that whole torture a family arc, not to mention sending many of her own demons to there deaths, and slaugther dozens when there were no need. Lucifer destroyed on epic scales, such as all the pagan gods simply out of disgust and annoyance. Raphael was less vindictive, but his motives were simply self serving, and he would kill all who got in his way. Roman tried to turn man into cattle, and showed very little regard for his own kind. And Crowley has headed several massacars simply to demonstrate his power. General MGD 109 (talk) 22:38, May 8, 2013 (UTC)


 * I think pretty much every villain ( michael included) would kill anyone in their way and turning people into cattle was Roman's goal. But fair dues I think it's fair to say neither of us will convince the other. No matter, i enjoyed the debate anyway and i guess not listing Michaels not that big a deal. As for my orignal point, are you happy with removing Edgar?


 * Sure, he didn't really play that much of a role in driving the season, still he was a good villain. So I guess your right, we're have to end this with agree to disagree, glad you except taht. Thank you for the debate.  General MGD 109 (talk) 22:46, May 8, 2013 (UTC)


 * That I can agree on. My pleasure. :)

Dean's Crossroads Demon?
Should Dean's crossroads demon count as a secondary big bad? Just seeing as it was a recurring villain for season 2 and it is thanks to the demon that Dean sold his soul and ended up going to Hell and breaking the first seal. Any thoughts?

No, she doesn't count, sure she's a reccuring villain, and played a part in the events of the series, but that doesn't make her big bad material, to by a big bad or a secondary big bad you have to play an important role in the events of the season, she was simply Azazel's pawn, never doing anything of any real importances, and her excepting the soul wasn't par of her plans or anything, it was simply a lucky break, Dean could have easily called a different crossroads demon, not to mention the fact only giving him one year was Azazel's orders (not directly stated, but he was running the show at this point, and they weren't getting anywhere with John, so it stands to reason). So no she doesn't count. General MGD 109 (talk) 17:17, May 8, 2013 (UTC)

By that logic, Meg shouldn't count as she is simply Azazel's pawn and he could have sent another demon to do his work. Besides getting Dean's soul was crucial to the master plan and if it was as you say "a lucky break" then there's no guarantee that any other crossroads demon would say yes. Plus there is no evidence that Azazel gave the "one year" order.

Um, yes there is, Alastair revaled that getting Dean down stairs, was all part of the big plan, as John wasn't breaking, and as Azazels running the show at this point, and making the plans it has to be his plan. As such as it was part of the plan no crossroads demon would have said no, or they would have to face Azazel's wrath. Plus your comparison doesn't really count, sure Meg was Azazel's pawn, all secondary antagonists work for the big bad, but she implimented several very important plot points over the season, all of which were of her plan, while the crossroads demon just go lucky. Not to mention Azazel was quite close to Meg, he even called her his daughter. She it was crucial, but it wasn't her plan she was simply the "saleswoman" who directed it. General MGD 109 (talk) 20:51, May 8, 2013 (UTC)

Well, when you consider that dean's crossroads demon was the one who introduced the idea of making deals onto the show, so dean wouldnt have even known how to make deals unless they had encountered her. Its impossible to say dean was part of the plan as sam dying wasnt part of the plan as it suprised Azazel. So its more likely that the idea of dean breaking the first seal was decided after the deal was made not before. Therefore other demons could have said no to the offer.

Point about the selling souls, but then dean already knew about selling souls before he met her. Plus some time had passed since then, and Azazel had already altered his plans very quickly so there's no reason to assume he couldn't have done it with this, I mean why only give dean one year if it wasn't part of the plan? General MGD 109 (talk) 21:05, May 8, 2013 (UTC)

why give him a year if it was part of the plan? nothing would change either way. Dean new of it but he wasn't sure how to summon the demon. there was hardly anytime between sam dying and dean selling his soul plus if he knew dean would ask for sam to come back why would he bother investing his time into Jake?

Would dean agree if less than a year? To get his plan on the way incase dean didn't sell his soul after all, its implied Azazel has multiple plans all set out, incase events don't go according to plan. Plus I find it a pretty lose link, he could have found out to summon demons from a book. General MGD 109 (talk) 21:14, May 8, 2013 (UTC

It's his brother.. he'd agree to anything. Hell he nearly does agree for no years. But would he have thought of the idea had he not encountered crossroads demon a few months earlier. I doubt it.

Okay, where going a off topic here, were going to much into speculation, can we stick to the facts. And the facts are she appeared twice, once as the main antagonist in the episode that introduced crossroads demons and hellhounds. Second she appeared and brought sam back in exchange for deans soul. Which was later revealed as part of Azazel's plan by Alastair. And that's it, how does that make her big bad material? General MGD 109 (talk) 21:22, May 8, 2013 (UTC)

She recures more than once. she plays a crucial part to the main plot by bagging dean's soul. She's evil. That's pretty much makes her equal to Jake. Plus by the logic of another demon couldve been summoned, ava could have killed sam instead of jake and the result would be the same if Jake wasnt present.

She appears twice, plays one crucial role by chance, and is evil. Sorry but Jake relased the demons from hell on his own volition, after turning on sam and kill him, that makes him more evil, to not to mention more crucial. I don't see how she counts. General MGD 109 (talk) 21:30, May 8, 2013 (UTC)

I think it makes her equally as vital as jake. Both appear twice, both play a crucial role by chance as you put it. If Jake hadn't been there Ava wouldve done the exact same thing and that one crucial role she plays is quite substantial given that it's what starts the whole thing.

You make a few good points, however Jake played a larger role, as if the demons weren't relased it wouldn't have mattered if they got deans soul or not. And Jake was more specific, he killed the other special children, or atleast two of them, he was the last one standing, he didn't get picked by luck of draw, he was the surviour. While she was simply a random crossroads demon.General MGD 109 (talk) 21:38, May 8, 2013 (UTC)

Well thats an oxymoron because  releasing the demons wouldnt matter unless deans soul was captured cos lilith couldnt break the seals. Im not saying jake isnt important or a main villian. He is. I just think that the crossroads demon played a big part too which ultimately contributed to the main plot and should therefore qualify. Jake was a suvivour but only by chance just as the crossroads demon was summoned by chance.

why they could have always found another reigious man ready to snap, they chose dean simply out of spite, just like they chose john. I don't disagree, she did play a big part in taking deans soul, but it wasn't her plan or anything she meary arrived in the situation. Jake was the surviour because he killed the other two and went to the darkside. General MGD 109 (talk) 21:46, May 8, 2013 (UTC)

Dean had to be the one to break the seal because he is the only one who can be michaels vessel hence John not working out. The whole master plan relies on fate not random selection. None of this is jake or the demons plan. Hell its not even really azazel or liliths. Its lucifers. They are all just his pawns. Some play bigger parts than others and they are the ones who are often the main or secondary villains: azazel, lilith, jake and (i think) the crossroads demon.

That was never stated, the seal stated "A rightous man" not any specific Rightous man. And I'm sorry I think I've been declaring the wrong definition, your right its the big bad who makes the plans and all that, the secondary big bad impliments them and plays an important part in the series. Sorry, I don't know what I was thinking. General MGD 109 (talk) 21:54, May 8, 2013 (UTC)

It's alright. I'm just saying ultimately deans demon does implement azazels plan and play are big part in the series as she gets deans soul to hell and helps start the apocalypse. The same way alastair counts as he got dean to break and broke the first seal when technically another demon in hell could have done the same.

You have a point, okay I'm in two minds about this, can we get another user to mediate, if they agree, I'll agree. Plus I think the fact Alastair continued to play an important role in the series after tha also puts him up. General MGD 109 (talk) 22:00, May 8, 2013 (UTC)

Fair point, alastair is certainly a stronger villain. I agree on getting another user. Thanks for the debate all the same.

Your Welcome. General MGD 109 (talk) 22:05, May 8, 2013 (UTC)

Season 3
Should we add Ruby as another secondary villain for S3? I mean, she was working towards the same goal, we just didn't see results until S4. Then again, she didn't contribute to Lilith's plans in S3 the way Bela did, so maybe she shouldn't really count as a secondary villain for that season... Hmm, I'm torn. Anybody else want to weigh in?50.89.225.132 22:07, May 8, 2013 (UTC)

i'd agree as that was still when she started to manipulate sam and really that was her main contribution to lilith's plan so i'd say that makes sense.

I agree. Although she didn't really do very much till the next season. General MGD 109 (talk) 22:18, May 8, 2013 (UTC)


 * She was only revealed as a villain in the fourth season. It is pointless to add her as a villain in the third season.

I'm sorry, but I'm going to have to disagree with this. Ruby was not a "big bad" in S3. She was a wild card for that season. We did not see her actual plan in action until S4. -- MisterRandom2 (talk) 16:24, May 16, 2013 (UTC)

She began manipulating Sam at the start of season 3 and just because her plan wasn't revealed does not have any relevance. It's like saying lilith isn't a season 2 villain because she didnt break any seals till season 4.

S8 Shuffle
Now that the finale's out, I personally think Naomi doesn't deserve to be on this list, and it's Metatron who should be the Big Bad, as it was his mastermind plot regarding the tablets. Crowley became in essence, how Eve was in Season 6. FTWinchester (talk) 02:03, May 16, 2013 (UTC)

I agree but really seeing as Naomi was one of the more recurring antagonists and she was ultimately the main threat of heavn for this series, it might make more sense to have Crowley, Metatron and Naomi and remove Abaddon as she didn't really have a huge part to play throughout the series that contributed to the main plot. It's more likely she'll serve a bigger role next season.

I feel that this season didn't have a Big Bad really I mean both Crowley and Naomi were sort of tied for that position with Abadon as a runner up (sorta). Then Metatron came along and knocked them both off with his plan and assuming he had been planning this years in advance he could probably be considered the Big Bad.MrAnonymous (talk) 10:20, May 16, 2013 (UTC)MrAnonymous

Crowley has been the overall Big Bad of the season. Who turns out to be the "winner" at the end of the Season should not be the main factor here (hence why Castiel is not one of the Big Bads for Season 6). It's who has had the most presence and causes the most trouble for the Winchesters throughout the season. That has clearly been Crowley. Naomi is definitely a secondary villain, as she was a significant problem for the Winchesters, though not the Number 1 threat. Abaddon and Metatron are debatable, though given the significant role they play towards the end of the season, I'm inclined to agree that they are Big Bads as well. But Crowley is still the Major Big Bad of the season. -- MisterRandom2 (talk) 16:20, May 16, 2013 (UTC)

I agree with MisterRandom2 although I'm unsure if we should really include Abadon, but then without her they would have never found a way to cure demons... no scratch that I'm in complete agreement. General MGD 109 (talk) 18:48, May 17, 2013 (UTC)


 * Abaddon certainly does not count as a Big Bad for Season 8. -- ImperiexSeed, 2:51 PM, May 17th 2013
 * Okay I'll remove her. General MGD 109 (talk) 19:05, May 17, 2013 (UTC)

Ruby Season 3?
Can someone explain why we're not including Ruby for a secondary villain in season 3. I mean I know we didn't see her main objective until season 4 but why is that relevant. She still was manipulating Sam, she still convinced him to do morally questionablt things like suiting casey and father gil with the colt and she still is using Sam to achieve her goal. It's just we didn't see it until season 4. It's like saying Azazel isn't a big bad for season 1 because we didn't see his plan until season 2, it just doesn't make sense. Can anyone explain?

Discussion needed
This entire page is confusing. can we all sit down and talk properly and carefully on how we categorize/classify the characters of the show?

We need to come up with a concrete operational definition on classifying characters as 'Big Bad'. What do we consider? There are several inconsistencies in the big bads listed here. Some are listed because they openly antagonized the heroes, despite turning good or meaning good (just in a different or grander scale), while other characters who acted similarly are not. Case in point: Castiel (Soulstiel/Godstiel) and Naomi. Both have antagonized the brothers. Castiel actually did more direct damage to the Winchesters than Naomi ever did, both while having the intention to do 'good'. Abaddon was just flat out evil and yet is not listed, whereas Metatron is, yet both appeared in the same number of episodes. I mean sure, Metatron kicked out all angels, but Abaddon also wiped out the Order of Letters singlehandedly didn't she? Characters starting as an antagonist and having a change of heart and being good toward the finale are still listed as villains (Naomi, Crowley) regardless of their final alignment, whereas a character deemed as 'good' but revealing true motives as 'bad' are also listed as 'bad', taking into consideration only the final alignment (Ruby isn't listed until season 4). The reasons I've read keeping Naomi in the list is because she caused problems for the Winchesters (with emphasis on the Winchesters as the loci of good/evil), changing only at the end of the season. Then why is Metatron listed, when his evil deeds only occurred the last two episodes, and did not even really affect the Winchesters (deemed by some contributors as the basis of whether a character's action is good or evil) directly? FTWinchester (talk) 18:44, June 9, 2013 (UTC)
 * Alignment?
 * Intentions?
 * Actions?
 * Motivations?
 * Extent of damage? Damage to Winchesters? or Damage to humanity in general? Damage to the Natural Order?
 * Duration of antagonism? Emergence of antagonism?

Well how much affect they have on the events in the series plays an important part, as does exactly what events they did, although antagonising the heroes usually counts, Naomi is included as as well as antagonising the heroes and brainwashing Castiel, she also ordered a ruthless masacar simply to drive him out, and then killed inocent people in cold blood. She repented towards the end, but that didn't really change much. Castiel is not included, as although he did horrible things his interntions were good, and he was only being manipulated by Crowley and Raphael, he may have caused a number of things that happened, but there responsible for everything they did. To be the big bad you have to be running the show. Ruby isn't included as although evil, her influence wasn't felt untill the fourth season. I don't really know why Metatron is included, probably because he kicked all the angels out of heaven, which in esence is one of the worst things any one has ever done on this show. General MGD 109 (talk) 19:29, June 9, 2013 (UTC)


 * I say we base it on how they were presented for the majority of their run, as well how they affected the plot, their actions, and their level of antagonism towards the Winchesters and/or humanity in general. Disregard motivations and alignment, since the former is inconsequential in the grand scheme of things (whether so-and-so thought she was doing the right thing or not, she still killed people and is thus a villain) and the latter may shift or be revealed as fake (all the explanation I need to say for this one is Ruby).

Azazel, Lilith, Lucifer, Dick Roman, and Crowley were all presented as the main threat for their seasons, the one that the Winchesters were trying throughout to stop. They are their seasons Big Bads.
 * Season 6's Big Bad is more up for debate and there are good arguments for and against specific characters, but I say that Raphael is not the Big Bad of that season because the Winchesters didn't actively try to stop him--Cass did, so he is Cass' Big Bad, but not the season's. He should be listed as a supporting antagonist. Crowley's role was mostly a way to save Sam's soul--despite how evil he was and how much the Winchesters would've liked to kill him, they didn't really care about him at first, then had to work for him, then tried to kill him--but he wasn't consistently portrayed as the Big Bad. He might also be considered a supporting antagonist. Cass isn't revealed to be an antagonist until very late in the season, so he also did not have the feel of a Big Bad. I would say Eve is the Big Bad, despite how she fizzled out, because she had the most build-up as the main threat throughout the season and the Winchesters mainly focused on fighting her and her monsters. I'd like to hear others' opinions and what their criteria for being the Big Bad is; maybe my Season 6 arrangement will change.
 * As for supporting antagonists, Season 1 is clearly Meg. I'd say that S2 doesn't really have a supporting villain--Jake Talley came in too late, and Gordon and the CRD was used too sparsely to count. Maybe the Psychic Children as a whole? S3 would probably be Bela, but I don't know if she was presented as a significant enemy in most of her run for her to count. (As in, for many of her episodes, the boys didn't treat her as they would treat S1!Meg.) The CRD, Gordon, and Henriksen only appeared in one episode each, so they shouldn't count. Keep Alastair, but I'd remove Ruby from Seasons 3 and 4, since the line between her being portrayed as an ally or an enemy is too murky to really count and her true allegiance was only revealed literally seconds before she died. S5's supping antagonists would be the Four Horsemen (but instead of listing each Horsemen separately, but add them under their collective title since they were only collectively a recurring antagonist) and arguably Zachariah and Michael (the Winchesters weren't gunning for them, so I'm not sure they should count--they were definitely antagonists, but maybe not Big Bads or their supporting antagonists). S6 might have Castiel, Crowley, Eve, and/or Raphael; maybe the Alphas. S7 would have Edgar, but maybe not Hallucifer since, again, the Winchesters weren't actively gunning for him--I'm pretty iffy on this one. S8's supporting antagonists, like S6's Big Bads, are murky--the Winchesters didn't really go after Naomi despite her being presented as a villain, Abaddon wasn't used enough or effectively enough to be a supporting antagonist, and Metatron was missing most of the season and mostly presented as a good guy (like Ruby) before his true motives were revealed.

Okay, my list so far would look like this (and I know I'm contradicting my above points a few times, but):
 * Season 1: Azazel, supporting antagonist Meg (demon)
 * Season 2: Azazel
 * Season 3: Lilith, supporting antagonist Bela Talbot
 * Season 4: Lilith, supporting antagonist Alastair
 * Season 5: Lucifer, supporting antagonists the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse
 * Season 6: Eve, supporting antagonists Castiel, Crowley, and Raphael
 * Season 7: Dick Roman, supporting antagonist Edgar
 * Season 8: Crowley, supporting antagonist Naomi
 * Begin disagreeing... now!--50.89.225.132 19:39, June 9, 2013 (UTC)


 * I've read TV tropes and studied examples, including Big Bads of Buffy (the show which originated the term), and the idea is, as General has suggested, 'whoever runs the show', and according to most definitions around the net, 'the man behind the man', 'whoever is behind the master plan'. Effectively, this would and should include Castiel in season 6, as he not only directly did evil acts, he was also part of the masterplan to draw out Eve and secure power for himself. Eve could not be considered the Big Bad just because of how she was set up--many characters are deliberately written as the decoy Big Bad. In the end, most shows list the big bad as whoever is behind all the convoluted plot and whoever wins the game. FTWinchester (talk) 19:45, June 9, 2013 (UTC)


 * So, you're saying that Castiel and Crowley would both be co-Big Bads of Season 6 with Eve and Raphael as supporting, Ruby would be the supporting villain of Seasons 3 and 4, and Metatron should be the Big Bad of S8? The first two examples sound fine, but I still feel that Crowley should be the Big Bad of S8 instead of Metatron.--50.89.225.132 19:50, June 9, 2013 (UTC)


 * That is of course, following the meaning of the term in most popular media. All other antagonists that were merely enforcers (as opposed to the antagonists that laid out the plan) are only contenders or decoy Big Bads, and not the actual Big Bad. However, there are cases, that there could be two big bads that do not work together, if the plot of the series branches out. Since Metatron's subplot arrived too late and was not exactly directly entangled with keeping the gates of Hell closed, Crowley could still be considered the (or one of the) Big Bad(s). FTWinchester (talk) 19:53, June 9, 2013 (UTC)
 * [Bumping for reactions.] Castiel should be listed as a big bad. Reasons are stated above. FTWinchester (talk) 05:17, June 18, 2013 (UTC)


 * As I see it, I think it should be listed as:


 * Season 1:  Main Villain= Azazel, Secondary Villain(s)= Meg.
 * Season 2:  Main Villain= Azazel, Secondary Villain(s)= Jake Talley and Dean's Crossroads Demon.
 * Season 3:  Main Villain= Lilith, Secondary Villain(s)= Bela Talbot and Ruby.
 * Season 4 : Main Villain= Lilith, Secondary Villain(s)= Ruby and Alastair.
 * Season 5 : Main Villain= Lucifer, Secondary Villain(s)=  Michael and Zachariah.
 * Season 6: Main Villain= Castiel, Secondary Villain(s)= Raphael, Crowley and Eve.
 * Season 7: Main Villain= Dick Roman, Secondary Villain(s)= Lucifer Hallucination.
 * Season 8: Main Villain= Crowley, Secondary Villain(s)= Metatron and Naomi.

Reasons being that  everything done in the first season is done through Meg on behalf of Azazel. In the second series the main plot  is about killing Azazel and he is controlling the devil's gate plan. And Jake and Dean's crossroads demon are the two responsible for Dean going to Hell and therefore the breaking the first seal. The third season is all about saving Dean from hell so Lilith is the main villain as holder of his contract and bela is the one character who causes most problems for the brother and works for lilith. Ruby is debatable but I think she qualifies as she is already manipulating sam and causing tension between the brothers. Season 4 is about stopping the seals so lilith is obvious as the seal breaker. And seeing as Ruby ultimately led to Lucifer's freedom, likewise with Alastair. Season 5 is clearly Lucifer. I wouldnt really count Michael but really he is the leading force behind Heaven's interferance and Zachariah is his leading tool. Same a with Azazel and Meg. Season 6, while Cas has good intentions, he does many evil acts and is responaible for opening purgatory and releasing Eve. Crowley and Raphael and Eve were all sort of build up to the twist of Cas as a villain. Season 7, Dick is obvious. Sam's hallucination is the only recurring villain other than leviathans. Season 8, Crowley is the main threat to the brothers and is the one who is searching for the tablets. Naomi simply because she is the main antagonistic force in Heaven and Metatron because he banished the angels, risked sam's life and is pratically Ruby again.

(fixed anon's response above)


 * If nobody else responds, then nobody better have a fit when I include Castiel in season 6. FTWinchester (talk) 14:17, June 18, 2013 (UTC)
 * Why are you bringing all this up again? On this very talk page there are already two discussions on why not to include Castiel on this page. What exactly do you expect people to say which hasn't already been said. Plus how can you class Castiel as the main villian? He wasn't running the events of the season, he simply entered a partnership with Crowley, Crowley was already going to do all that happened already, Castiel simply made it easier. Crowley and Raphael ran the events of the season, Castiel simply got set down the wrong path. General MGD 109 (talk) 19:00, June 18, 2013 (UTC)


 * I am fully behind FTWhichester on this. The fact Castiel went down the wrong path is very reason why he would be classified as a Big Bad because it led him to commit actions that were clearly antagonistic. However, with that said, I feel it's debatable whether Cas was the "main" Big Bad of Season 6, despite the outcome of " The Man Who Knew Too Much". 108.247.147.25 03:38, June 21, 2013 (UTC)


 * If you want my two cents, they are as such: Castiel is called the "Big Bad" or something akin to the term in the Season Six Companion Guide (which is official). He Who Shall Not Be Named By Mortals (talk) 03:43, June 21, 2013 (UTC) Kesslerbeast


 * Because I wasn't around when the discussions happened before? And I think the end result of those previous discussions are wrong? Sure, Crowley made the plan, and Castiel only entered the deal, but have you considered Castiel killing Balthazar? Breaking down Sam's wall? Killing Dr. Visyak? Betraying the one who drafted the master plan? How is that not characteristic of a "Big Bad"? He not only did bad things, he was also part of the master plan that shaped the course of the entire season. Why do you think Castiel himself is so repentant starting season 7? Plus, the fact that at least two contributors are agreeing means that the decision you had before is questionable. [Addendum] Eve never even wanted war; she was forced into it by Castiel, and we count her as a secondary villain, while the instigator/aggressor is touted 'innocent'? FTWinchester (talk) 03:51, June 21, 2013 (UTC)
 * I think that people are having a tough time accepting Castiel as the Big Bad because he is an angel (who are the "good guys") and is the third most beloved character on the show.  RaghavD  Taking the ROAD less travelled  04:20, June 21, 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree, RaghavD, and I think the same could be said about Michael due to his status as the Viceroy of Heaven and being the "good son". 108.247.147.25 04:27, June 21, 2013 (UTC)


 * Yeah, forgot about the Michael debate.  RaghavD  Taking the ROAD less travelled  04:44, June 21, 2013 (UTC)
 * Hardly. It's arguable Castiel is even more popular than Sam, based on how I see it in many sites. Anyway, I digress. Michael could also count based on how a 'Big Bad' is  usually  defined. He worked behind the scenes, hatched a master plan that involved evil and stuff, manipulated other characters, was a big boss, etc. It shouldn't be this hard, really. If a character satisfies those categories, there is no doubt he/she is a big bad, and it's not unheard of to have an assembly of big bads (people just tend to steer clear from the messy conflict and brand a Bigger Bad). FTWinchester (talk) 04:48, June 21, 2013 (UTC)
 * Hardly. It's arguable Castiel is even more popular than Sam, based on how I see it in many sites. Anyway, I digress. Michael could also count based on how a 'Big Bad' is  usually  defined. He worked behind the scenes, hatched a master plan that involved evil and stuff, manipulated other characters, was a big boss, etc. It shouldn't be this hard, really. If a character satisfies those categories, there is no doubt he/she is a big bad, and it's not unheard of to have an assembly of big bads (people just tend to steer clear from the messy conflict and brand a Bigger Bad). FTWinchester (talk) 04:48, June 21, 2013 (UTC)


 * Oh, and the fact that Zachariah is listed and not his boss Michael makes this really laughable. Pardon my french. FTWinchester (talk) 04:51, June 21, 2013 (UTC)


 * True. During any conflict, there'll be more cats on the wall than people on the either sides. How about a poll? Based on the votes, we can edit the page and then lock it so that vandals may not run rampant? RaghavD  Taking the ROAD less travelled  04:56, June 21, 2013 (UTC)
 * I think they attempted to have a poll before, but it did not work. Also, Caleb is quite firm against running polls in the wiki because we are supposed to operate in a consensus basis (hence me bumping this repeatedly). FTWinchester (talk) 05:10, June 21, 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok. Then what do you suggest for this? I think that this will go on and on, as different people have different notions about what they think is right. RaghavD  Taking the ROAD less travelled  05:19, June 21, 2013 (UTC)
 * I know. It does make things here quite slow. As of now only General disagrees. Whether more will disagree, more will join and agree, or all that are already involved will reach a consensus, only time will tell. FTWinchester (talk) 05:29, June 21, 2013 (UTC)
 * Hmm. Ok. Let's wait and watch. RaghavD  Taking the ROAD less travelled  05:31, June 21, 2013 (UTC)
 * Adding Zachariah and keeping out Michael would be like saying Ruby is a Big Bad and Lilith isn't, right? And both Michael and Castiel had 'good' intentions but were pretty much bastards with their conniving and secret plans173.32.44.80 14:26, June 21, 2013 (UTC)
 * I find your analogy a bit off, but you do have point about including Zachariah and not Michael, personally I thinks its because Zachariah was the more evil. Michael was a genuinally sypathetic character, Zacharaih was basically a chaniving jerk who had no regard for anyone and only cared about himself and his position. Plus Castiel can not count as the big bad reguardless of what he did as he wasn't running the series, up untill the last episode when he took over, upto that point he was simply working for Crowley. Maybe he could count as the secondary big bad, but I'm unsure if we should even count him as that. General MGD 109 (talk) 18:52, June 21, 2013 (UTC)
 * I think what you don't understand, General, is a Big Bad should be classified by antagonism toward the protagonist, not alignment to good or evil. You seem to determine who is a Big Bad from a black and white perspective, but the truth is there also gray area in between which is where Castiel, Michael and even Samuel Campbell fall under. This area is why one who is good would be considered a Big Bad, because they commited evil acts, despite for the greater good. 108.247.147.25 19:42, June 21, 2013 (UTC)
 * So your saying it doesn't matter if a character is good or bad it matters what they did to the heroes? Then doesn't the likes of Hendricks count? I don't see why we shouldn't include how good or bad a character is? Most of the villains do fall into the black area, its the heroes who are in the grey area of morals (reguardless of all the good they do Sam and Dean are theives, murders, kidnappers, burgalurs, trespassers, imposters and have broken enough laws to be on the most wanted list, all other heroes are just as bad if not worse.) General MGD 109 (talk) 20:45, June 21, 2013 (UTC)


 * You can't really base whether or not a character counts as a villain entirely on their motives. Because from their perspective they're not doing wrong. Azazel and Michael's motives are loyalty to their "fathers". Zachariah and Castiel's motives are both that they feel they are improving the world and purging it of it's threats. The only thing that all these main and secondary villains should have is that they should strongly contribute to the main plot of each season and they should be a recurring antagonist of the Winchesters (who despite their actions are the main heroes of the series).
 * "its because Zachariah was the more evil"
 * If you think Zachariah was evil, then maybe consider his orders were coming from Michael. If you truly believe Lucifer is evil and must be contained, then a power capable of keeping him chained should keep him chained. What classifies a 'Big Bad' is not solely the alignment (in some cases, it's even irrelevant). As long as a character conspires/is behind a plan that a) results into the antagonism of the protagonists, b) is a major driver of the plot, then, the character is most likely a 'Big Bad'. Bonus points for a) actually killing other characters or leaving so much damage/destruction, and b) having a lot of lackeys to boss around. If Michael acted differently, say perhaps, like Gandalf and/or Dumbledore (both of whom, although manipulators themselves and master plotters, were actually good guys and did not purposely and completely antagonize the hero, and whose plans resulted in actual victory for the side of good), then I would understand the case to leave out Michael and Castiel. Unfortunately, both Michael and Castiel failed in both criteria, because a) they were ambiguously good/self-righteous, and b) their plans that drove the story for an entire season involved antagonism towards the Winchesters, and other numerous characters, even resulting to death. FTWinchester (talk) 17:06, June 22, 2013 (UTC)

Okay lets try this again. Now at no point am I suggesting that they don't count as villains. And I get your points about them going agaist the heroes however, although your starting to convice me with Michael. I still don't think you can Count Castiel as the big bad, as he wasn't running the series, he was mearly helping Crowley, and he was only doing that because he was driven to it by Raphael, plus appart from the last episode he never did anything actually agaist the heroes and even then all he did was temporarily disable Sam, with all intentions to healing him later, techniqually it never really put any of them in danger, so even by your standards he doesn't count. Now maybe he could count as one of the secondary big bads with eve. Plus what exactly did he do to contribute to the series? Crowley and his demons kidnapped and tortured the monsters, while his blackmailed hunters helpped. I fail to see where Castiel fails into this.

Now onto your anelogies, I some how think there a bit lacking, sure Azazel was loyal to his father, but he was also a sadistic tyrant, even by demon standards who enjoyed slowley torturing others to death for no reason other than it was fun. Sure Michael didn't really care about humans, but he never went out of his way to harm them, the only time he did kill or indended to kill was when faced with a situation where not doing so would have been more difficult (such as talking to Zachariah in that bar). While your analogy between Castiel and Zachariah falls falt considering Zachariah had absolutly no reguard or care for humans, and simply used the idea it would make the world better to try and convince Dean to side with them. General MGD 109 (talk)

Zachariah never went out of his way to hurt humans or anyone except Sam and Dean. Michael actually injures/kills more humans than Zachariah does. And he tortures Adam to force him to say yes, just like Zachariah. Besides others like Crowley, Naomi, Jake only kill to further their own goals, not for fun. Hell, Bela doesn't even kill anyone. All the characters mentioned (except usually Castiel) show no regard for human life and kill them if it will even be slightly to their advantage. But even then Castiel kills two of his angel friends and almost kills Sam so he also shows lack of regard for life if it will help him achieve his goal. Castiel had good intentions but he is directly antagonistic towards Sam and Dean and therefore is an villain. Briefly, but he's still an villain. It's the same principle as how he villains can be protagonists to an extent as Meg becomes the Winchester's ally yet in season 1 she's undoubtably a villain.

True, but you have to admit his brutality goes a bit further than Michaels, the only times he killed were generally unitentional, he arrived in the bar to talk to Zachariah not to kill the patrons, he was going to kill all those people in the fight when they got caught in the cross fire between him and lucifer. Surely you don't think all Crowley's (and to a lesser extent Naomi's) killings were necessariy? He murdered two prophets just to make a point. And as I already said I don't know how many times, I'm not arguing that doesn't mean they don't count as villains, I'm arguing it doesn't mean they count as main villains. Are you telling me that one openly antagonistic role in one episode of the series where he really didn't do anything that evil (appart from murder Baltazar and temporality disable Sam) makes him the main antagonsist of the series? General MGD 109 (talk) 21:43, June 22, 2013 (UTC)


 * So from your statement above, I take it you agree to list Michael and Castiel as secondary villains, at the very least? FTWinchester (talk) 21:51, June 22, 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'm leaning towards it, you do make quite a few valid points, plus I'm sort of getting tired of arguing, this is the third time I've had to repeat and rework my stands. General MGD 109 (talk) 22:05, June 22, 2013 (UTC)


 * Cas also murdered Rachel and had been working with Crowley since episode one. Not to mention provoking Eve into leaving purgatory along with crowley and lying to Sam and Dean about his death.


 * Okay, whoever you are, Can I make clear for about the fourth time that I'm not arguing he doesn't count as a villain, I'm arguing that he doesn't count as a main villain.
 * Let me put it this way, in comparison between Castiel, Crowley and Raphael, Starting with Raphael: he planned to free Michael and Lucifer to restart the apocalpsypse, murdered countless Angels because they wouldn't obey him, and drove Castiel to Crowley. Crowley manipulated a troubled Angel, kidnapped, imprisoned, tortured and murdered thousands of monsters, killed a lot of people aswell, manipulated hunter comunities, lied to Sam and Dean, led to Eve's coming, kidnapped Lisa and Ben and tried to kill Sam and Dean. Castiel lied to Sam and Dean, made a pack with a demon so he could gain the power to stop Raphael, one which he planned to cheat Crowley from the start, barely did anything to help him except kidnapping and torturing Visyak, disabled Sam with all intentions to heal him later and killed two angels, one who attacked him the other because he betrayed him. How is he in the same tier as them? General MGD 109 (talk) 17:38, June 23, 2013 (UTC)
 * It's implied that Castiel was helping Crowley torture the hundreds of monsters and it was also because of him and Crowley that Eve showed up. He also, as Dean pointed out, made the same offer that Ben and Lisa would be safe only if the brothers stood down. He didn't heal Sam and had no reason to kill Balthazar except out of revenge for his betrayal. Hell if Cas wasn't doing anything that was that bad why would he cover it up. He may not have been as openly evil as Raphael or Crowley and had good intetions but he still did commit several evil acts, contributed to the main plot of opening Purgatory (and as a side note provoked Eve), he also could have killed Crowley and worked alone rather than help Crowley fake his death and he was ultimately a recurring, main antagonist for Sam and Dean. That alone is enough to give him a place as a main villain.


 * Well he couldn't have been helpping that much considering he was leading a war during most of the series, yes that was made incredibly clear (mind you Eve was hardly mother of the year, even to her own children). He did do that, he didn't heal Sam, because he had by that point gone mad with power due to absorbing all those souls. Yes he did kill Balthazar because he betrayed him. Because he was doing evil things. He only contributed to stop the apocalypse, Crowley and Raphael did all they did out either Greed or Arrogance. Indeed he did, he still needed Crowley at that point so killing him would have been like shooting himself in the foot. He was the antagonist for them in one episode, and even then all he did was temporarilly disable one of them. And as this seems to keep slipping past you, I'll make it as obvious as possible. I'M NOT ARGUING HE DOESN'T COUNT AS AN ANTAGONIST, I'M ARGUING HE DOESN'T COUNT AS AN MAIN ANTAGONIST. Several onetime enemies did more evil things than he ever did.  General MGD 109 (talk) 17:40, June 24, 2013 (UTC)


 * I get that. But the fact that he is a recurring antagonist who contributed to the main plot of opening purgatory is enough for him to qualify. Such as??
 * No it isn't Edgar isn't included as a secondary villain, despite being a recurring antagonist who helpped impliment Dick's plan. Well lets see shall we, there Samhain who went as far as murder the person who released him, sadistic murdered dozens of people and used to create havok in the celtic times. Or what about H H Homles who had been sadisically murdereing women for decades after his death. Or what about Doc Benton? Or Jacob Karns? and so on. General MGD 109 (talk) 20:00, June 24, 2013 (UTC)


 * Each of them only appeared onve and didnt contribute at all to the main plot. Edgar was a recurring villain but he didn't play a key role in the leviathans plan, no more than any other leviathan. So the definition of recurring villain who contributed strongly to the main plot still stands. I'm not saying that Cas is more evil than the villains you listed, of course he's not. I'm just saying i think he qualifies more as a main villain than they do.


 * Honestly, I don't have much to say on this issue of, 'Who's a Big Bad and who's not.' There are some obvious ones, like Lucifer being the protagonistic villain in Season 5. Now that I think about it, though Castiel appeared to be good, in Season 6, he apposed humanity, even Dean; and, Raphael, Crowley and Eve were just off to the side, "in the background." -- ImperiexSeed, 12:35 PM, June 25th 2013


 * So, what is the conclusion of this debate?
 * I have no idea, I think everyone's just lost interest. General MGD 109 (talk) 18:53, June 28, 2013 (UTC)


 * I was going to add Castiel and Michael as secondary villains (as per consensus of all that were involved at the time), but you (General) and anon continued the discussion, so I was just waiting for a bit to see what you two would come up. I also take it there are no changes to the consensus on adding the two characters as secondary villains (at the very least)? FTWinchester (talk) 05:45, June 29, 2013 (UTC)
 * Maybe Castiel, but I think you've convinced me with Michael, I personally still think he's to sympathetic and justified to add, but if where basing this on how they affected the winchesters and how much damage they caused, rather than there actual morals and goals, then sure.
 * I take it as of yet I haven't convinced you that Castiel shouldn't be included, even if you forget about morals or goals, as he techniqually only opposed the brothers once in the series (though he was lying to them from the beguining, I personally don't think thats really so evil that it counts though) and its highly questionable exactly how much he did in causing the events of the series, as it was Crowley and his demons who kidnapped and tortured the monsters (Castiel may have helpped, but considering he was fighting a war during season six, how much time would he have had to help?) So in esence I still say, following your orders that only Crowley, Raphael and Eve should be included, as both of them caused massive damage and openly opposed the brothers.General MGD 109 (talk) 17:56, June 29, 2013 (UTC)


 * Having the capability to stop evil and yet let it happen nonetheless, or worse, actually taking part on the plan, or even as extreme as devising the plan, while killing innocents and opposing the protagonists all apply to both Castiel and Michael.


 * Castiel had hands on in the plan--more so than just passively agreeing to it. He personally captured, tortured and killed Dr. Visyak, killed Balthazar, and broke down Sam's wall. He stood by as Lisa and Ben were being captured and tortured, and also warned Dean not to interfere. He stalled Bobby's efforts to uncover what happened exactly with Lovecraft. In contrast, Eve even tried to ally with the Winchesters even after she caught them (and only mainly wished to go after Crowley, maybe Castiel, too, if she had known), and wouldn't have been dragged into it if not for Crowley AND Castiel. The whole plot of Season 6 could not have gone on with just Crowley--Castiel had a big hand in it, and we can't downplay it. How sure are we even that Castiel's excuses of he's "busy fighting a war" isn't actually spent on making plans with Crowley, when by contrast, we have an actual episode showing how many times Castiel and Crowley connived behind the scenes? At the very least, Castiel should be a secondary villain. You can't call Eve a secondary villain and consider one of her aggressors/instigators to be free of charge, for the same reason that we can't label the United States as 'evil' for causing so much damage to human life in World War II and yet consider Imperialist Japan (the Pearl Harbor aggressor and conspirator to Nazi Germany) to be innocent. If this parallelism still doesn't convince you on the dynamics among Crowley-Castiel-Eve, I don't know what else will.


 * Michael had good intentions but he left most of his brothers in the dark about actually helping an ancient powerful evil being to rise--which led to several insurrections in the ranks of the Heavenly Host causing the deaths of several angels who thought they were doing God's will, some even at the hands of their own brethren. He personally destroyed the one angel that remained loyal to the cause of the greater good and free will of humanity. He allowed Lilith to break all the seals (consider the number of seals and how many number of people and their lives were affected by each and every one of the 66 seals), he unnecessarily killed all the humans in a bar when he can obviously simply communicate to Zachariah on a whole lot of other means like the angel radio, and indirectly had a hand through all the suffering of human lives under demons and the horsemen during the apocalypse that he could have prevented. You call Zachariah more evil but his orders came from Michael. As the anon way above pointed out, that's like saying Ruby is a Big Bad and Lilith isn't---and it's completely ludicrous and logically unsound. Michael allowed Lucifer's mastermind 5-season-long plot to achieve fruition. Frankly, one can even argue Michael is the bigger bad. Had he been actively trying to keep Lucifer shut, no amount of effort from the demons would have succeeded, at all. If he wasn't at all evil, why would the writers spend an entire subplot on Anna trying to convince Castiel to doubt whether the Apocalypse was actually the will of God?


 * Looking at this in both literary sense and in actual moral sense, Castiel and Michael were both sketchy, the very definitions of "road to hell paved with good intentions" and qualified categorically to be Big Bads in their respective arcs. I rest my case. Whether or not I convinced you, I don't know, and I will no longer push it through after this post, but I will leave this argument and all the parallelisms for you to decide. And technically speaking, Raphael hasn't even dealt much direct damage to the Winchesters, or to any humans for that matter. FTWinchester (talk) 18:44, June 29, 2013 (UTC)
 * True, but he did cause Castiel to alline with Crowley, so everything that happened can be traced back to him, and isn't that really the definition of the big bad, the villain whose actions cause the events of the series? General MGD 109 (talk) 18:56, June 29, 2013 (UTC)


 * I dont think anybody mentioned anything about removing Raphael. 173.32.44.80 20:04, June 29, 2013 (UTC)
 * No body did, I was simply countering FTWinchester point. General MGD 109 (talk) 20:06, June 29, 2013 (UTC)
 * I posted the Ruby:Lilith and Zachariah:Michael comparison. It still stands. Even Imperiex agrees Castiel was one of the main villains. 173.32.44.80 20:14, June 29, 2013 (UTC)
 * Could you please expand upon that. General MGD 109 (talk) 20:18, June 29, 2013 (UTC)
 * LOL it's pretty much clear from what others have already made a large text of. Why are you counting Zachariah as a secondary villain and not his boss? And Castiel is inexcusable as well. He has to count as a main or secondary villain.


 * Sorry but don't you think if your previous statements had convinced me, I would have stopped this debate by now? Now I personally don't think Michael still counts as a Big bad, due to his sympathetic orgin and grey morallity goals.  But considering following the apparantly newly accepted standards to be a Big Bad, morals and goals no longer matter, its now all about damage done, effect on the heroes and possition in the series. By those standands then okay, I can except Michael being included as the secondary big bad, and maybe even as the duel main (but I would need a bit more encouraging for that.)


 * Castiel however is a different story, now lets go over the new standards of being the big bad shall we. Now lets start with Damage done, all he did was assisst Crowley with torturing monsters to a low extent, that means any demon who crowley reguarly employs counts as high as him. He could have had a larger role, but it seems somewhat unlikely as he was leading a war at the time.


 * Okay what about agaist the heroes, sure he did lie to them and manipulate them, but he never went out of his way to hurt or harm them. And he made it very clear to Crowley killing them was out of the question, he backed down when Fate threatened to kill them, and he was only openly antagonistic to them once in one episode when he temporarily (or atleast it was ment to be temporarily) disabled Sam to stop them interfearing. I repeat in one episode.


 * And finally lets look at his place in the series, he was forced into a deal with Crowley by Raphael, he followed Crowley's already existing plan and he only took over in the end, to stop the evil demon Crowley getting hold of millions of souls, and is that really a bad thing?
 * I await your reply. General MGD 109 (talk) 18:23, June 30, 2013 (UTC)


 * I've always thought the definition for a Big Bad has always been the same. People are just too attached to a character or are confused by 'angelic' sides to consider Castiel one, which results to inconsistent categorizations.


 * Obviously you're far from giving this up. I just find it weird that at least three or four contributors agree that Castiel and Michael should be included and it is you alone who has to have the final say about it. Plus the mere fact it keeps getting contested says a lot about the topic.


 * Anyway, I suppose Eve is also a different story. She made it clear killing the Winchesters, Bobby and Castiel, was out of the question as long as they help her. She never really wentout of her way to harm them, because she preferred a civilized discussion with them. She only killed people directly in one episode. It was the alphas, the khan worm and the jefferson starships who actually did all the damage. I repeat in one episode.


 * And finally lets look at her place in the series, she was forced into the war because of the deal of Castiel with Crowley, she tried to oppose Crowley's evil plan and Eve was just protecting her children, and she wanted to kill the king of hell and wanted to keep him from gaining more power, and supported the
 * natural order and is that really a bad thing? 173.32.44.80 20:12, June 30, 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think I'm the only person who holds these views, just the only person whose still bothered to continue expressing them, as you will see from looking on this page, this has been brought up three times before, and if I win it will probably be brought up a fourth and fifth time after that. Its a war of Attrition, the question is whose going to quit first, I think your be happy when I say its probably going to be me.
 * I don't think I'm the only person who holds these views, just the only person whose still bothered to continue expressing them, as you will see from looking on this page, this has been brought up three times before, and if I win it will probably be brought up a fourth and fifth time after that. Its a war of Attrition, the question is whose going to quit first, I think your be happy when I say its probably going to be me.


 * Now I would point out you don't answer my points, but I guess I didn't always answer yours, and I don't want to look like a hypocrit so I'll say nothing of that. Onto Eve, I'll give you credit in the fact she didn't want the war and was forced into it by Crowley and Castiel's activities. However I somewhat disagree with your comparison, all the monster activity from the beguining of the season till her death was due to her, who inturn was due to them. Sure she mostly had others do the damage, but it was still her pulling the strings, you could use the same argument agaist Azazel in Season One. The difference between her and Castiel is he only indirectly oposed the heroes (except for one story) while everything she did was dileberate.


 * And Truthfully she was a lot more evil, in projecting her children she tried to wipe out humanity, lead to countless transformations to build her army, used humans for experiments to try and make better monsters (which I must note she didn't really seem to care if they got killed) and forced even her halmless children to start killing and converting, how exactly does that make her innocent? Besides I thought we said we were disriguarding Motives and goals, and focusing only on damage, influnce and affecting the heroes. Eve only wanted Sam and Dean to hunt Crowley, after that she would have killed them reguardless, Castiel didn't want them to die or be hurt because he cared about them.


 * And to answer her question, no that isn't a bad thing, the way she did it was the bad thing, rather than simply going to all the trouble of destroy thousands of innocent peoples lives, she could have simply tracked down Crowley and killed him herself, putting an end to the persecution. Truthfull (and you don't have to take this, its mearly my theory) I can't help suspecting she planned to do this before he started, and it was simply Crowleys actions that forced her to put her plan into action. General MGD 109 (talk) 20:27, June 30, 2013 (UTC)


 * Perfect! You've countered me perfectly. The monster activity was under her orders. So why can't you accept it about Zachariah and Michael? 173.32.44.80 20:31, June 30, 2013 (UTC)


 * I did a quick search in google, and there are at least three articles that also consider Castiel a big bad. Here's one, two ,and three. There are also more results that show Castiel is considered a big bad than otherwise. 173.32.44.80 20:35, June 30, 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't know how closely your following my points, but I stopped arguing about Michael a few posts back, I still don't think he counts, but if you want to add him, sure go ahead. I still personally don't think he counts considering he had a tragic past, grey motives and a lack of evil or dark desires, as nothing he wants to do is really to hurt others, its simply a acceptable loss in his mind. Still I said I would stop arguing for him.


 * Although resourceful, I don't see how there ment to convince me, I disliked the fact that poll included Ruby but missed out Alastair, Zachariah and Crowley. If you look over a lot of websites your find one that argues a lot of things, I just stopped paying attention. If you like articles I would give you one of my own, sadly I can't seem to find it again, if I have any updates you can have it. General MGD 109 (talk) 20:55, June 30, 2013 (UTC)
 * Don't bother about it. I'm done. 173.32.44.80 21:00, June 30, 2013 (UTC)
 * So now how long to the fourth debate starts? A war of Attrition can only go on so long. General MGD 109 (talk) 21:04, June 30, 2013 (UTC)
 * Purely for referance, I found it here  General MGD 109 (talk) 17:37, July 1, 2013 (UTC)

Zachariah?
It seems that a large majority are against putting Michael as a secondary villain. But if that's the case then why are we including Zachariah? All of his actions were under Michael's instructions so it doesn't really make sense to have one without the other. It's like putting Meg in there and not Azazel. Also, it's been stated that secondary villains have to be evil and make a strong contribution to the plot. What exactly was Zachariah's contribution? I mean yes he wanted Dean to be Michaels vessel but thats Michael's agenda, not his.

To count as the big bad, you have to be evil. Michael wasn't evil, he wasn't nice but he was a well intentioned extremist and a anti-villain, while Zachariah, was a striaght out uncaring jerk who had no reguard for anyone but himself. General MGD 109 (talk) 17:00, September 26, 2013 (UTC)

So then why do we include Naomi or Jake who cared about his families safety or Eve who cared about her children's well being? And even if he was evil, what did Zachariah do to contribute to the main plot?

Good point, okay Jake well he might have still cared about his family, but he did murder Sam in cold blood and was willing to start the Apocalpse out of Greed, not to mention he found it funny when he almost made Ellen kill herself, thats pretty evil to me. Eve, true she did care about the monsters, but she did also force even her more benevoltant children to start killing humans and clearly took some sadistic pleasure out of her experimentation. Naomi, well I'm leaning with you there, she was much like Michael. The fact that she showed Remorse and reedemed herself probably could count as meaning she should be removed, but she still did quite a few terrible things before she finally came to her senses. Like I said they have to be evil, but not neccessarily pure evil, most villains have atleast one redeeming triat Lucifer and Azazel were amongst the most evil beings of all, But Lucifer still loved his Archangel breathern and Azazel loved his father and cared about his fellow demons. As for what Zachariah did to contribute to the plot...now that's a good point, well he did cause Dean to beguine to loose faith in his brother and almost drove Dean to saying yes to Michael. And he also brough Adam back to life, meaning that the fight could occure without Dean. General MGD 109 (talk) 17:04, September 27, 2013 (UTC)

True but when Jake killed Sam he thought he'd be killed if he didn't and he clearly showed remorse after it when talking to Azazel. How exactly do you define evil? If it's simply lack of regard for human life then Michael should be on there with Zachariah. If it's committing villainous acts due to selfish motives then Meg and Azazel don't make sense cause they're completely dedicated to Lucifer's freedom (which is more loyal than selfish). Personally, I feel it should just be antagonistic towards the Winchesters. But that's just me. True but Zachariah did that on Michael's orders.

Thought? He had turned Paranoid and attacked a man with no insentive or proof of his fears, following Sam promising he wouldn't kill him and laying down his weapon as a symbol of trust. Not to mention he was of course noticible more powerful (Sure Sam was the better fighter and used to facing superstrong opponents but Jake had no idea of that) not to mention he killed Sam after Sam defeated him, and stopped fighting making it clear he wasn't going to kill him. Sure he regretted it, but by the end of the episode Azazel had clearly corrupted him, he was acting entirely out of Greed and turned Sadistic. Its not just lack of reguard (although that is important to include) its motives and reasons. Doing evil deads such as murder or torture is bad, doing them out of greed or pleasure it is evil. They may have been Loyal, they were also brutal, sadistic, merceleous killers who took great pleasure out hurting others uneccesarily. Antagonism to the Winchesters does count, but it isn't enough to count as evil, if it was then we would have to rank any police offical who arrested them as evil, when they were simply doing there jobs. Zachariah did everything out of pride was enjoyment towards the cause, he also took quite a bit of pleasure hurting and mocking the brothers. Michael on the other hand didn't, he was supremancist (when your that powerful though is it really supremancy or simply a fact?) but he only did what he did out of obsessive loyalty and apthy. Do you get my point? General MGD 109 (talk) 20:12, September 30, 2013 (UTC)

To an extent but I would argue that while Jake gave into his dark side, he was right to be frightened as Azazel could easily have killed Jake and his family so that's not paranoia. Antagonism to the winchesters is key to being a main antagonist but simply having good intentions shouldn't cloud the fact that they have done terrible things. For example Cas had no reason to kill Balthazar because even though he betrayed him, he wasn't a great threat. Zachariah doesn't torture for the hell of it, but he will to get a job done to make himself look good but Michael will wipe out 2/3 of humanity and kill his brother to please his father. Motives are actually quite irrelevant because from a villains perspective (lucifer, eve, ect) they are doing right. And because many situations like with Michael and Cas aren't black and white, it's hard to judge whether or not they're evil. The fact that Cas was willing to risk Sam's life and that Michael refuses to walk off the chessboard when Lucifer asks shows that they are willing to commit terrible acts to achieve their goals regardless of the outcome. Also, whereas Cas wants to prevent Raphael winning, Michaels motive isn't really any better than Lucifer's as he just wants to please god by killing lucifer and claiming the earth for himself and the angels. It may be loyal, but its loyal to a pretty negative force (sort of like Azazel's loyalty). And being more powerful does not factually make you superior to anyone ( thats Gabriel's whole point about the angels and humanity).

He wasn't afraid of Azazel killing him, he was afraid of Sam Winchester killing him, he didn't know Azazel existed at that point. Sure Azazel could kill him and his family, but Azazel never threatened him or his family, he simply offered to make there lives a lot better if Jake agreed to sell out his own kind. Antagonism towards them may count quite importantly but I think your dismissal of motives is in error. What the villain things about themselves is reguardless, we don't class delusionals as good people, we class people who do bad things for sympathetic reasons and such as neutral people. Indeed he didn't, but he was still a threat and at the eleventh hour Castiel couldn't afford any threats. He tortured Adam for annoying him, he also enjoyed hurting the brothers, it wasn't simply something he had to do, he enjoyed it. Neither of them were evil, both had gone off the deep end but they weren't evil. Sure they were willing to do terrible things, but considering there goals and problems were they really in the complete wrong? How would Michael stepping off the chess board change anything? Lucifer wasn't planning to stop, he simply didn't want to hurt his brother (or if your more cynical he was afraid of Michael hurting him). Michael didn't want to claim the earth, he didn't care about any of that, all he cared about was furfilling his fathers wishes, the guy clearly had something of an obsession with pleasing his father, though considering he had spent eternity doing what his father wanted, while knowing that he was not his fathers favourite, and had been betrayed or abandoned by almost everyone who he loved and was left with only Raphael for advice and comfort its a miricle he didn't turn out as bad as Lucifer. No it doesn't, but you can't really blame him for thinking that way. General MGD 109 (talk) 19:30, October 1, 2013 (UTC)

Yes he did. Azazel came to him in a dream and said that they both die if jake didnt kill Sam. And no again, Azazel said that if Jake didn't obey his family would "know the chewey taste of their own intestines". Just because Balthazar was a threat doesn't justify killing him. Michael also torured Adam in Hell for "annoying him". Zachariah had to make Dean say yes and torturing his family was the only way that would ever work. No Lucifer offers to walk of the chessboard and stop everything. The apocalypse, everything. The whole point of Heavens plan was that they would fight lucifer, and when they won the earth would become theirs. Hence Raphaels comment of "whatever we want, we get". I think Michael and Lucifer are just two sides of a bad coin. Michael may be loyal to his dad, but being loyal to a bad cause is a negative factor. Michael simply wants to prove himself as a good son and he is willing to do anything to achieve that. Even killing his brother and the vast majority of humanity. Lucifer is undoubtably evil but I don't think either one is sympathetic. Both he and michael are consumed by pride and want to prove something to their father. So in a way I think he is as bad as Lucifer but like Lucifer he tries to justify his actions with "good intentions" and the theory of "I have to do this". I can't blame him for thinking that way any less or more than I can for Lucifer, Dick Roman or any other monster thinking that way.

I don't recall that happening, as far as I remeber Jake killed Sam because he was afraid Sam would kill him, Sam promised not to and to look after him and but down his weapon as a symbol of faith. Jake then tried to beat him to death, Sam won and didn't kill Jake, despite his fears but Jake still killed him anyway. Okay that bit might have happened (its been a while since I saw the episode so I may make a few mistakes here and there) but Jake was still clearly corrupted by the end, and Azazel's offers did linger, the look he had on his face when he made Ellen put her gun against her own head says it all. Who said justify? I didn't, I'm not arguing that it was justified, my point was it wasn't simply a murder in cold blood it was the removal of a potential threat on the eleventh hour. We have no proof of that occuring, it was simply Castiel's theory, it might have but we have no proof, for all we know Michael is still wearing Adam down there now. Just for referance Michael never appeared in Sam's hullicinations only Lucifer. He offers to stop, but that doesn't mean he would, he just wanted the fight not to happen, would you really trust the devil to uphold his promises? He's already betrayed Michael once and he clearly hates humans to the point of insanity, whats to stop him doing it again? And if you watch the scene Michael actually considers the offer he spends several seconds thinking about it. The whole point was Michael wanted to end all this and furfil his fathers wishes, if he really wanted the earth he would have taken it long before he broke Lucifer out. That's all Michael cared about and he was willing to do anything to achieve it, that makes his actions evils but not his intentions. Raphael was a much more evil figure. I don't, Michael wasn't a good person, but he wasn't evil he wasn't acting with evil intentions or did anything with evil inentions, he was just clearly insanely loyal and devouted to furfilling an absent fathers wishes. I think he's pretty symapathetic. Think about it his most beloved brother betrays him, his other archangel brother abandons him, his father who obeyed every order without question abandons leaving him surrounded by thousands of child angels to look after and only Raphael (who was much more evil,) is left for guidence. For all we know it was Raphael who convinced Michael to do half the things he did, he was clearly jonesing for the appocalypse. I'm not sure what you meaning about Dick Roman or any monster, sure he just wanted to eat but there are other ways of eating than turning man into cattle, like eating actual cattle for example. Plus he was an elitiest bully he causally mistreated his followers and obviously hightly sadistic. Likewise other monsters do the same thing, there motives may be purer as they need to eat, but they don't need to eat people, not mention a large portion of them are clearly sadists. General MGD 109 (talk) 13:26, October 2, 2013 (UTC)

Im not saying jake wasn't a villain but he clearly wasn't pure evil as he did show signs of regret and (at least at first) he acted out of fear, not malice. Well it doesn;t really matter if Michael trusts Lucifer because if Lucifer lied then Michael would just beat him anyway. Rahael isn't very different to Michael as both are hurt when god abandoned them and both really act out of arrogance, The main difference is that Michael believes in gods actions. Raphael would never be able to insist anything to Michael. The only person Michael listens to is God. Everyone else's opinion is irrelvant in his eyes. I'm saying that if you dont blame Michael for believing he is superior to humans you can't really blame any other monster (Lucifer, leviathan, demons) for being superior either.

I told you at the beguining they don't have to be pure evil, they just have to be evil. Like you admitted he changed, Azazel corrupted him. Exactly, so why prolong the inevitable. Michael doesn't act out of arrogance, simply fantactical loyalty, he wasn't exactly that arrogant, he mocked Dean once when Dean bothered him, but appart from that he never actually did anything out of malice or hostile intentions, all the evil things he did, were simply he was reallly willing to except as a neccesarry cost. Why not? Michael obeys and listens to his father, but I don't think him asking his brother for advice is to out of the question, I never said Raphael made him do anything, I said Raphael might have convinced him to do it, after all he seemed more keen on the apocalypse than Michael, he was more along the idea of excepting it had to happen and not letting anyone stop it, he even admitted he didn't want to do it but was to fantatical not to. Michaels a lot more powerful than any of them, but I'm not saying he's in the right, and you have to admit he was a lot less arrogant than most angels. General MGD 109 (talk) 18:47, October 3, 2013 (UTC)

Michael was pretty arrogant. I mean he saw himself as superior to everyone and the fact he probably tortured adam into saying yes and threatened Dean shows he has a serious temper. If Rapheal suggested anything, Michael would ignore it and focus on god's instructions. Also, there is no proof michael is a lot more powerful than leviathan or eve. He's equally as arrogant as Cas and Raphael. Lucifer and Zachariah are a bit more arrogant. But compared to Rachel, Balthazar, Samandriel, Inias and Naomi he's far more arrogant and aggresive.

I didn't say he wasn't arrogant, but he's hardly the most arrogant Angel. So? Raphael's wishes weren't in contrast with Gods orders, Raphael could have simply encouraged him to follow through and kill Lucifer. I don't see why you consider it impossible. Yes there is, Leviathans are no where near as powerful, they can kill angels because there either immune or are able to neutralise certain angelic powers, put they can also be stopped and killed by human antagonists. Eve, all she could do was depower an angel, Archangels are a completely different standard. Neither being could perform feats of power anything like Michael or any other Archangel. Cas did get quite arrogant, but Raphael was a lot more arrogant, the moment Michael got kicked out, he started acting like he was God "It is what god wants" "How do you know?" "Because it is what I want." I disagree, he only got aggresive at the end, when dean interuptted his fight with Lucifer. He didn't seem that angressive when he came back. Besides Samandriel and Inias are two of the better angels. General MGD 109 (talk) 17:08, October 4, 2013 (UTC)

So? Almost every creature (save death and god) can be killed by a human. Eve's full power was never demonstrated and still if they can "unplug" angelic powers then they would be more powerful. They possess more abilities but Crowley possesses far more powers than leviathan and they can make short work of him. Yeah. he got aggressive when he learned Dean was no further use to him and he was in his way.

No, upto date, no human has been able to kill an Archangel, the only thing that can is either an archangel blade or a more powerful being. Maybe, but there is a great differance in power between an Archangel and a Seraph, in direct comparison it would be between unplugging a light and a nuclear reactor. Saying Eve could based on that is nothing sort of speculation, which this wiki does not support (it does suport joining the dots though). Its not just how many abilities you posses, but the scale of them. The only truely impressive powers Crowley has are Telekinesis and Spell casting (although invisibility is cool, why doesn't he use that more often.) As Leviathans can't actually shut down angels powers (I still sand by there simply immune to them) or such, it wouldn't make much differenace as they clearly have no affect on physical abilities and are pretty easy to disable. Indeed so were in agreement. General MGD 109 (talk) 18:10, October 5, 2013 (UTC)

True. I'm not denying that Archangels are powerful, I'm just saying that it's possible that Eve or Leviathan have the potential to be stronger or weaker which you cant really deny either without being speculative. In crowley's defence, he is probably the most impressive user of telekinesis and he's used biokinesis with some skill to. I've always wondered why other demons dont use invisibility. Well even if Leviathan were immune to angelic powers it would simply be a matter of physical strength and if they were vunerable to the black goo which would give the leviathan an advantage. We are. I just think it's a bit odd including Zachariah but not his boss. But I guess it's not a big issue. I guess I just feel Michael deserves to be listed as a main antagonist as he is the driving force of Heaven in season 5 and he is one of sam and deans most formidable enemies.

Indeed its possible, but like you said saying anything would be speculative, so lets leave it at agreeing to disagree okay? I don't know his telekinesis is impressive, but all the things he's done (restraining or throwing people, lifting them to a impressive height) have been done by other higher level demons, Azazel did all those things. His Biokinesis is more impressive though. My best guess is its either very or unique to Crowley, why he doesn't use it more often I have no idea? Maybe, but assuing it was brute strength, the Archangel would still presumably be stronger (Raphael did a lot better against Seraph Castiel than those two leviathans.) But like I said, Agree to disagree. Indeed, thank you for the debate. General MGD 109 (talk) 19:57, October 6, 2013 (UTC)

Azazel never pinned people off the ground, held people in the air, broke a neck with telekinesis or destroyed objects by pointing at them. Yes but high ranking levi will be stronger than the low rank ones. But as you said, there's no right answer. My pleasure and thank you

He did lift several mothers into the air with Telekinesis and held them agaist the celling for some while, while also slowly ripping them open. True he never broke anyones neck or destroyed anything, but he did toss grown men arround like rag dolls. Sorry if this is over and I'm streching it on, I never know when a converstation is over. General MGD 109 (talk) 01:23, October 8, 2013 (UTC)

It's cool. You raised some good points all the same.


 * I really avoided reading this because I know I wouldn't be able to stop myself, but now that I have, I'd just like to say/ask a few things.


 * General, I thought on our last discussion you were inclining to believe Michael could be considered at the very least to be a secondary villain?
 * Eve unplugging an angel is a powerful feat in itself. You seem to have forgotten that Castiel was already a Seraph then, along with 50,000 souls and all the weapons of heaven. The light bulb and nuclear reactor analogy sounds really off when you consider how much regular angel Castiel was boosted at the time of Mommy Dearest.
 * Saying that Eve had nothing else on the ability of the archangels is also completely wrong. Eve had the ability to create new beings (monsters), alter the soul and damn those souls into a separate supernatural dimension (Purgatory). What is comparable to that? Lucifer, demons and hell.
 * Anon's point on humans being able to kill almost anything is not that far-fetched. Even humans could bind Death. If humanity had been given instructions on how to kill anything, I bet they could, given the correct circumstances. So just because Dick was defeated by humans does not invalidate that Leviathan themselves are still powerful in their own right, and to say whether they are weaker than archangels is just as speculative as saying as they are stronger than archangels. In the end, what matters is staying true to canon and note that there has been no circumstances whatsoever in the series where the two groups of beings fought against each other and one group of beings winning from the said fight.
 * But really, I just wanted those things said. My only real query here is your stand on Michael. You seem to have retracted your previous say on the matter. FTWinchester (talk) 16:41, October 18, 2013 (UTC)


 * Your right I had forgetten about that. Okay my stand is I'm willing to except he was a villain, but I don't think he can count as a main villain, because he wasn't evil.
 * Okay on to your other points, are you really sure? Castiel was still a Seraph with 50,000 souls when Raphael crushed him between his fingers tips. As for the weapons, I'm assuming he didn't litearlly have them with him, as they are phyiscal things and its doubtful he wouldn't have suggesting using them when he discovered his powers were out, the weapons were mostly likely in the hands of his trusted liutenants who were using them on the battle field. So Yeah I think my analogy still holds up.
 * That is a point, but still its not really that much in comparison to the feats of power Archangels have pulled off, lets go through, Gabriel could manipulate time, space and reality at a whim, Raphael could whipe out the entire eastern sea board, Lucifer could cause mass devesistation arrround the entire world before he even got a host and Michael was more powerful than all of them. So is Eve really that impressive?
 * Maybe there isn't, but I think common sense can say who would win. There hasn't been a fight between Dragons and Jefferson Starships in cannon, but I can say with complete certainty it would the dragons who won.
 * Is that everything? General MGD 109 (talk) 19:21, October 18, 2013 (UTC)
 * A lot more things I wanted to say but I only want to focus on the Michael as secondary villains since I don't want to draw the other things out anymore. FTWinchester (talk) 04:15, October 19, 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay so where do you want to go from here? General MGD 109 (talk) 19:01, October 19, 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh don't worry about those, I don't plan on pressing on the others. FTWinchester (talk) 13:13, October 20, 2013 (UTC)

Pestilence.
Of the four horsemen, pestilence is the only one who played a significant role in the sotry of season 5 as he unleashes the croatoan virus. But war and famine didn't contribute anything at all. I mean Lucifer's plan wouldn't have worked if pestilence wasn't there, but if war and famine weren't present his plan would still have been successful. So wouldn't it make more sense to just include Pestilence and remove war and famine? Seeing as death doesn't count cause he doesn't want to caryy out his role and war and famine didn't do anything important towards the apocalypse. They just caused a little extra carnage. But then so did the whore but she like war and famine didn;t really do anything to contribute to Lucifer's plan except kill a few innocents and gather souls for Hell.

All four horsemen were critical, they were all ment to impliment different stages of the appocalypse, its just Sam and Dean stopped War and Famine before they could start there stages, presumably they would have done something along a similiar lines if they had had time to carry it out. Death also would have wiped out whole cities if he hadn't been stopped. Together they make up the secondary antagonists, they each play a crucial role in the plot of the reason, including the fact that there rings are what solved the series in the end.General MGD 109 (talk) 13:30, October 2, 2013 (UTC)

Well they clearly weren't because even after both were defeated there was still a chance Lucifer would succeed as Pestilence and Death were still active. Plus, jesse would have done more damage than all of them had Sam not talked him out of it. War and Famine merely caused a little carnage where as pestilence and death are the horsemen who really bring about the apocalypse. Only pestilence played a crucial role in the antagonists plot and death played a crucial role on the winchesters side as he showed them how to open the cage. War and Famine simply had their rings taken off them which isnt a crucial role to Lucifers plan.

Yes, but they were going to, they just didn't get a chance. Its simpliar to keep all the horsemen together as one entity for the secondary villain, rather than argue other who did more or would have done more. Regurdless they all drove the plot forward in someway or another. General MGD 109 (talk) 18:52, October 3, 2013 (UTC)

So what if they were just dabbed in the storyline. The Horsemen all, together, count as the main antagonist alongside Lucifer. Death could've wiped out everything that exists except for God in an instant, and War and Famine lay in apprehension but will never cease unless their attributions cease to exist themselves. -- ImperiexSeed, 3:00 PM, October 3rd 2013

Well in that case, despite his motives, death should be included as he is a horseman. And you can't really say he doesnt qualify due to his motives because war and famine didn't play a vital role in the season.

I sort of agree with you, but I think your last point doesn't really make sense. General MGD 109 (talk) 17:16, October 4, 2013 (UTC)

My last point is just that if you are saying the 4 horsemen as a group are secondary antagonists then all 4 should be included, inlcuding death. Because as individuals it doesnt make sense as war and famine didn't  and wouldnt have really played vital roles in Lucifer's plan and death was held against his will.

Ah rigth, I'm with you now. Yes we probably should add Death. General MGD 109 (talk) 18:03, October 5, 2013 (UTC)

WTH General?
What do you mean old wounds? Didn't we agree the last time Michael was at least a secondary Big Bad? Didn't I confirm it just last week? Why are you acting so surprised? Look it up, you agreed to me twice that Michael was at least a secondary Big Bad--even if I still argue he is a Big Bad along with Lucifer. FTWinchester (talk) 18:21, November 2, 2013 (UTC)

No I agreed he was atleast a secondary villain of the season, thats not the same thing as the secondary Big bad. General MGD 109 (talk) 18:32, November 2, 2013 (UTC)

But you still intend to keep Zachariah, who has been receiving his orders from Michael. Wow. How many people have pointed this flawed logic out? FTWinchester (talk) 18:35, November 2, 2013 (UTC)

Okay, you can remove him if you want. A few, but I stick by my dission, now I hope you don't mind me asking this, but why do want Michael as the big bad for this season? Yes I know your going to repeat yourself, but could you please summerise it all in the paragraph bellow, just for me. General MGD 109 (talk) 18:45, November 2, 2013 (UTC)

I don't want him as one--but he happens to be one. I've seen the link you posted about protagonists being blinded toward the morality of a character that is against them. Unfortunately for us, we have no choice and we are stuck with the Winchesters. Sam and Dean aren't always right, but in terms of the technical analysis of literature, anything against Sam and Dean are considered villains or antagonists. Yes, there are subtropes and variations such as anti-villains or even honorable villains. No matter how you sweeten the term, point is, the character is still a villain. Anna had good intentions, but unfortunately for her, she is not the protagonist of this story. So even if I don't want to consider her a villain, her opposition to Sam and Dean in the end makes her one. What constitutes a Big Bad isn't their black and white morality--it's whether a) they are against the protagonists regardless of their goals/endgames, b) they are responsible for a good part of the advancement of the plot or arc, c) are superior and have several minions/henchmen that does most of the work for them. Being actually evil and committing evil acts is only a nice touch to a Big Bad's resume. Otherwise, if your protagonist was a mass murderer, whose antagonist was a police/detective, who then, would be your Big Bad in the story? By your logic in the status quo of the article, it would NOT be the police/detective, because he has good intentions. So does that mean your protagonist becomes the Big Bad? No. Your Big Bad WILL BE the police/detective, because he is antagonizing your protagonist.

Michael has all the characteristics of a Big Bad, and again unfortunately for people rooting for him (myself included), he is in opposition with Sam and Dean. It appears difficult to classify him as one, because he is an archangel (and supposedly a force of good; see police vs. murderer example above), and because, when you put him beside Lucifer, Micahel appears to be the "lesser evil". However, keep in mind that all of Lucifer's master plans would not have reached fruition without Michael's permission. This is the strongest clue that indicates how Michael is a contender as a Big Bad. Forget Azazel's machinations and manipulations, forget Lilith's strategic assaults against the seals and the angels at the same time--all of those were allowed by Michael to continue and succeed. So there it is again, "the man behind the man with the (evil) plan". Very characteristic of your Big Bad. Michael comes from a different branch, or the other side of the coin in the heaven vs. hell conflicts, but his motives aren't exactly good as one would suspect, and, again, is in direct opposition not just to the protagonists, but also to the cause of the protagonists--which is Free Will, the main theme of the story (which Chuck/God himself noted in the story near the closure of the episode/season). Michael wants to usher paradise, but at the cost of millions of people, at the cost of lying and manipulation, and at the expense of free will (again, this is one of the main themes of the story). If perhaps Michael was more comparable to the forces of law like Henricksen, who opposes the heroes but also the act of crime, then maybe Michael would get a pass. However, he deliberately allowed demons to wreak havoc and free Lucifer (this is supported by and mentioned many times in canon!!). Again, I would have to make another example to better illustrate this--suppose a village is constantly under attack from raiders and gangs. Fortunately for the villagers, their sheriff is the best gunslinger in town, has the sharpest brains and the greatest strength. He defends the village and imprisons all the gangsters. And then we find out he has been in league with the raiders and was ordering them to attack the town just so he could boost his status. Would you not consider that sheriff as a Big Bad? Or how about a pharmacist who managed to create a cure for a deadly disease that he himself made and spread to the world, just so he could earn billions and get famous?

So whether you analyze this in terms of technical character definitions OR in terms of morality, OR in terms of thematic analysis, Michael is almost always considered to be a major villain. FTWinchester (talk) 19:22, November 2, 2013 (UTC)

A very well written and convincing piece of work, I can honestly say I didn't expect you to write so much, I truthfully Don't think I can counter or defeat that argument. So go ahead, include him.

But call it grapsing at straws if you want, but I do sort of disagree with your finall analogies, all those people did those things out of self gain. Michael didn't, he just did it because the guy had spent his whole life trying to furfill an uncarign fathers orders, and it had gotten to the point where he had clearly gone insane. Michael and Dean are very much a like, as are Sam and Lucifer, both represent the worst ending serior for the brothers if they didn't keep there flaws in check. General MGD 109 (talk) 19:41, November 2, 2013 (UTC)

You are right, he didn't do it for himself per se, but because it is his destiny to do so (destiny vs. free will). Regardless, the scenarios I gave all share with Michael the 'apparent good' of the character when in fact, the 'good' character has intentionally let evil run rampantly on other people/characters and causing conflict, whatever the reasons for the endgame are. Michael's endgame is a little different from the sheriff or the pharmacist, but basically my point was that his means and motivation are still in opposition to Sam and Dean's thematic Free Will. I could add a backstory to make the sheriff or the pharmacist more sympathetic, but would that negate their role as a perpatrator of the (evil) plan, commanding henchmen, and directly causing opposition? I feel your pain General. Michael is somewhat my namesake and my favorite of all angels, but in this story, the character has been subverted into a villain. FTWinchester (talk) 20:01, November 2, 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, okay, I've got to say congratulations. After all these debates and talks over two years on this sight and others, your the first person who convinced me to include him. Well done, and go ahead your here no more disputes from me. General MGD 109 (talk) 20:18, November 2, 2013 (UTC)

I honestly hope it's not because you're tired of the discussion. FTWinchester (talk) 21:11, November 2, 2013 (UTC)

Come on? After two years, constant repeating, rewatching episodes for information and all that do you really think I would just give up? Well maybe I would, but I didn't I honestly can't think of anything more to say to counter your argument. Believe me I wish I could, but I can't. And there comes a time when you must admit defeat. General MGD 109 (talk) 21:42, November 2, 2013 (UTC)

Alright. I hope we're cool with this--nothing personal and all that? FTWinchester (talk) 22:04, November 2, 2013 (UTC)

Of course we are, its just a friendly debate among two fans, I would never let such a trivial thing affect my opinions of others. Truthfully I'm quite impressed, I didn't think anyone would be able to convince me to back down from this argument, but now you have and I guess this ends the matter once and for all. I still don't think Michael was evil or he was comparable to Lucifer, but your right in terms of the story he does count as the Big bad. General MGD 109 (talk) 22:17, November 2, 2013 (UTC)

Season 9
It pains me to see that of the roster of Season 9 villains, only Abaddon is worthy of the title. FTWinchester (talk) 12:45, January 2, 2014 (UTC)

Also, I would argue that Metatron is more characteristic of the Big Bad than Gadreel. Remember, the Big Bad is the 'man behind the man'. He is the master manipulator and expert strategist that controls lower villains, hence the word BIG in Big Bad. FTWinchester (talk) 12:49, January 2, 2014 (UTC)


 * Ok, there's no way those characters all fit either 'Main villain' or 'Secondary villain.' So, to start, I'd say remove Malachi (at this moment, at least), additionally, I'd put Bartholomew and Metatron up under as the main villains. That makes way more sense in my mind. Oh, an also, you wanna know what I find fuc**** hilarious? We're now making up roles to justify a credible insert, such as 'Anti-villain.' -- ImperiexSeed, 2:18 PM, January 2nd 2014


 * Implamented, and don't worry its gone. General MGD 109 (talk) 19:26, January 2, 2014 (UTC)

Bartholomew?
Should we really include Bartholomew for season 8? Granted he is leading some of the fallen angels but so is Malachi and neither has really contributed towards the main plot so far.


 * And there is little real development to the plot so far, if I may add. But anyway, they were two of the main driving forces of the mess that is the first half of the season. Villains listed here, after all, are villains that command several minions and their plans drive the story forward, which they both fulfilled (no matter how boring they were). The individual horsemen aren't any different, many having appeared only once, yet collectively they contributed to the plot. FTWinchester (talk) 23:12, February 4, 2014 (UTC)


 * Now that bartholomew is dead, isn't it fair enought to say he's not a significant antagonist for this season?

Remove Bartholomew?
Seeing as he's dead and it's unlikely he's going to play a significant role in this season, shouldn't we remove Bartholomew?

Secondary Villains
Mighten it be an idea to simply remove the secondary villains completely as people seem to have very different ideas on who qualifies and who doesn't. To say it has to be an antagonist who plays a vital role to the plot of that season is a bit of a stretch because while Jake, Ruby, Bela, Meg and the likes played fairly significant roles, villains such as Zachariah, Alastair, the Horsemen, Lucifer Hallucination didn't really contribute to the plot other than following the orders of their masters but so did several other villains throughout each series and played just as big a role. Also it brings about debates regarding if a character does count as a villain, as it seems unreasonable to claim Gadreel is a villain but Castiel in season six is not despite them both betraying the Winchesters and killing innocent people to further their goals.

Yeah, an idea, but a terrible one. I wouldn't use that solid of a definition for something that varies like secondary villains do. A more proper expectation for any secondary villain is they're the one or two villains that are shadowed or crayoned into the season, having varying degrees of usability. Even if Gadreel is doing this "all for the greater good" as to the comparison of Castiel in season six, Ruby is a secondary villain who played a significant role in the plot. -- ImperiexSeed, 4:11 PM, May 11th 2014

I never claimed that Ruby didn't play a significant role. My point was that if Gadreel qualifies then so should Castiel. If secondary antagonists are staying then there should be a firm definition of what one has to have in order to qualify.

You said she (along with the others you mentioned) didn't really contribute to the plot, which is ludicrous. Ok, this page (being titled Big Bad) is for evil characters, who are malevolently affecting the plot, NOT mislead characters, like Michael or Castiel. The usage of secondary villains fluctuate accordingly to compensate for plot. -- ImperiexSeed, 5:52 PM, May 12th 2014


 * "is for evil characters, who are malevolently affecting the plot, NOT mislead characters, like Michael or Castiel."


 * I beg to differ. Any charater in complete opposition to the protagonists (the Winchesters) are villains whatever their moral alignment is. As I have explained to General above, if your story is about a thief, then the villains/antagonist would be the police/detectives that hunt the thief, even if the protagonist is the one that is morally wrong (i.e., Henriksen). That's just the way it is. Anna and her dedication to free will is noble and morally correct, but unfortunately fo rher, she is not he protagonist of the story, and her plans run counter to the protagonists, therefore making her an antagonist. This isn't black and white categorizing of a character's morality (is he good or bad?)--this is categorizing them based on their actions against the protagonists and their contributions to the plot (is he opposing our protagonists or not?). FTWinchester (talk) 10:56, May 13, 2014 (UTC)


 * Then, Michael and Castiel appropriately fit in as secondary villains? So, then, perspective of the Winchesters is the sole qualifier for who counts as a villain and who doesn't? It makes sense, but it'd be a big sore on the page adding especially Michael to season five because there's a lot of characters already there. Along with season six, where there's Raphael, Crowley, Eve and now Castiel. That's a bit excessive and doesn't primarily focus on the main antagonist and secondary, it's villain galore by adding all these guys, don't you think? So, they all belong here? -- ImperiexSeed, 2:50 PM, May 13th 2014


 * I think you'll find, I claimed Ruby did contribute to the plot. I claimed Zachariah, Alastair, the Horsemen and Lucifer hallucination didn't really contribute to the plot (although granted alastair did help break the first seal). As claimed above though, the villains are essentially anyone who opposes the Winchesters, so individuals such as Michael, Castiel and even Henrikson should qualify. Also all three of these characters were far more recurring and played greater roles (as well as being bigger threats) in their respective seasons than characters such as Jake or Zachariah.


 * I've actually lobbied to make Michael a Big Bad, but I settled for a compromise with General to, at the very least, include him as a secondary villain. Don't worry, I am not proposing to add each and every minor villain to the list. I am just pointing out that classifying a Big Bad does not rely solely on whether they are actually good or otherwise. As for Season 6, we have little choice. It was a "free for all melee", and there were several factions (2 heavenly factions, 2 hell factions and Purgatory) vying for the power vacuum left by the apocalypse, so consequently (and understandably so), we also had several contenders for Big Bads (also known as a Big Bad ensemble). To be honest, I prefer the version we had a few months ago where Seasons 1-4 only had one Big Bad and one or two secondary villains, but Season 5, 6 and 7 have very complex dynamics among different factions, so it is expected to have more villains than the earlier seasons (which were more straight forward). FTWinchester (talk) 00:46, May 14, 2014 (UTC)