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)

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.