Talk: Indestructibility

Well, souls can cease to exist if God dies. I think they should be in nigh-indestructibility and change the name to souls from ghosts. SeraphLucifer (talk) 15:47, June 3, 2016 (UTC)SeraphLucifer

"End of reality" is not a weakness. At least not for any specific type of being. It's like saying the destruction of the planet is a weakness for humans.

Orion (T-B-C) 15:56, June 3, 2016 (UTC)

It's a weakness and yes, the destruction of the planet is a weakness for humans. There is nothing wrong with it. Lambda1 (talk) 15:58, June 3, 2016 (UTC)

Should we also list "end of humanity" as a weakness for angels, since it would render them unable to take on vessels? You don't think that's even a little bit ridiculous?

Orion (T-B-C) 16:02, June 3, 2016 (UTC)

Don't forget what the topic of the indestructibility page is, how an entity can be destroyed, which certainly includes all possibilities, including events. The thing is that souls have not many weaknesses, so it's even more important to enumerate each one they have. Angels have plenty of other weaknesses, you could also add "end of humanity" to the page, I don't mind, but it wouldn't be neccessary. Lambda1 (talk) 16:07, June 3, 2016 (UTC)

My point is that "weakness", in this context, implies weaknesses that are specific to each type of being. You don't say humans are vulnerable to the destruction of the planet, because that would annihilate everything else as well. Nothing can survive the end of reality, because reality is a necessity for everything else to exist.

Orion (T-B-C) 16:11, June 3, 2016 (UTC)

The way you formulated it "True Indestructibility" certainly implied that nothing can destroy a soul, which is simply not correct. If I visit a wikia and look for characters who are indestructible, I expect it to be indestructible under any circumstances. It wouldn't be accurate to classify said being as "True indestructible" if it can be destroyed. To solve this issue I propose to include "End of Reality" as a common weakness in the article's intro text. Even than souls also belong into "nigh-indestructible" since the other characters under that section don't have more weaknesses than a soul and Amara can erase a soul even without ending reality. That's a specific weakness of a soul. Lambda1 (talk) 16:25, June 3, 2016 (UTC)

End of Reality

I think we shouldn't list end of reality as a weakness to pages. However if reality ends, souls cease to exist and that makes them nigh-indestructable. SeraphLucifer (talk) 16:12, June 3, 2016 (UTC)SeraphLucifer

I think we should place it, if it is one of only few possibilities to kill an entity. Death has only his own Scythe as a weakness and the end of reality. Angels on the other hand already have dozens of weaknesses and mentioning "End of Reality" wouldn't add so much. Lambda1 (talk) 16:28, June 3, 2016 (UTC)

Souls II

1. Amara turned Metatron into nothingness.
2. Lucifer turned a soul into a demon (aka corrupted soul), with God's or Amara's much greater Reality Warping abilities they could (probably instantly, seeing that the reverse is possible by a ritual) turn a soul into a demon and then destroy it.
3. God made souls. God gave them nigh-indestructibility and as a high level Reality Warper, he can remove this property from souls again.
4. Death said souls are impermanent.

So, God and Amara can destroy souls (aside from end of reality) and I suppose Death could also convert them into demons and then destroy them. Lambda1 (talk) 03:23, June 4, 2016 (UTC)

Did Amara turn Metatron into nothingness, including his soul? Or is that just your interpretation of what happened? I saw him being imploded. It was never mentioned what had happened to his soul, and since souls can't normally be seen, we don't know what happened either.

You're right about the demon thing. However, how do we know that God can remove that property from souls when Amara herself said she couldn't undo what God had done? As for Death, he meant "impermanent" in the sense that it won't always go back to its vessel. They were discussing Dean's near-suicidal nature, after all.

Orion (T-B-C) 05:43, June 4, 2016 (UTC)

Considering he also said that nothing lasts forever but himself (He was wrong, but anyway), "Impermanent" likely refered to the general nature of souls. Either way...
Over the months, Amara had multiple goals:

O Brother, Where Art Thou?

About the souls:

They aren't gone. They're a part of me. And in that way, they live forever.

Just...Bliss. That feeling that you have when you're with me. For everyone, forever.

and then:

I was the beginning, and I will be the end. I will be all that there is

If she intended to create a new universe: She needs to imprison her brother in order to keep reality running, but she wanted to be omnipresent, means the old universe would have been destroyed and the souls consumed.
Her plans seemingly changed in Hell's Angel:

Rowena: The Winchesters say you are all about destruction.
Amara: The Winchesters are right. But... what they call "destruction" [Sighs] I call renovation. My blueprints. Not God's.

but later in the episode when she was upset about her brother she said to Lucifer:

And then he can witness the utter destruction of all his creation... before he himself is swept away.

Doesn't really sound any longer like keeping the other souls, right ? And this is even further supported in Don't Call Me Shurley
Police Officer: It will all be over soon. He's not gonna save them. It's all going away... forever. But not you, Dean.

At this point, Dean is the only one Amara wants to save. Her ability to destroy all the others is supported by:

Metatron: If Amara wipes the slate, the slate's destroyed. Everything is destroyed. All your great work... lost forever.
God: We should take a stroll, then. Enjoy it all one last time... before it's all gone.
God himself confirmed that she can destroy everything he created.

Edit: I will make a statements about God's possible ability to destroy souls even without converting to demons later. Lambda1 (talk) 06:48, June 4, 2016 (UTC)