This talk page has an archive here.

Regarding power levels Edit

I am writing this section in response to User_blog:EmpyreanSmoke/Weaknesses where we were having a debate on relative power levels and whether or not Leviathans could defeat Archangels. I am moving the discussion here, primarily because the user blog format makes it difficult to follow discussions and because the user blog space is not the right space for having a discussion on article content. The talk page of an article is the intuitive place to go for a newbie who wants to figure out whether there have been past established consensuses on that article, hence Talk:Leviathans.

Based on the messages left on my talk page, it seems we have a few issues that need to be cleared up:

  1. Was a proper consensus established here? If so, who was the discussion closed by and was there actually a group agreement? Consensus is not about the majority vote, so running a poll is just silly (not to mention highly abusable).
  2. If the above is true, why is there still edit-warring?
  3. Has the SPN Writer been verified? Word-of-mouth is inadequate, there has to be established and open evidence that anyone can countercheck for themselves if we are to start taking material from supposed SPN writers.

Issue 1: Was there consensus?Edit

I see two attempts to end the discussion.

  • The first was by Twilight Despair 5: here
  • The second was by EmpyreanSmoke: here

Both attempts at closure are problematic. Twilight's declaration that he is ending the discussion there and then seems premature, considering that there were disagreements that don't strike me as having been satisfactorily resolved. I point this out as observation as a (mostly) neutral party who isn't too heavily invested in the discussion. Furthermore, the tone of this closure is more reminiscent of someone 'laying down the law' as opposed to someone who has struck a successful negotiation and agreement between two opposing sides.

EmpyreanSmoke's closure is extremely problematic. There is a Wiki policy that states: All editors are equal. Now this might strike you as blatantly false given that some users have access to more tools and such, and yes this policy is very prone to misinterpretation. But it is a policy a lot of Wikis have adopted because of situations such are these. The key idea behind this is that it does not matter if you are using an IP, regular, sysop, bureaucrat account when it comes to a discussion. When we approach an issue, it should not matter that I've been here 3 years and you 1 week. What matters in the discussion is that you have a sound point. Not all arguments are equal (some are obviously more ridiculous than others), and some users have been established as trusted users by the community. But if you have a valid point, none of my past experience on the Wiki can override that. It is my responsibility to address that point or show you why this point is invalid or unsound. This is why seeing a comment like: "two anonymous users and a newly registered user" and "Four registered, established users" raises alarm bells in my head. This is an awful way of looking at the discussion. By all means, raise the fact that someone is established during an RfA. But it is completely irrelevant in a content dispute, and a form of discrimination.

It doesn't seem like the discussion has been properly resolved (especially given the renewed edit-warring) and I hope you agree that these aren't valid closures.

Issue 2: Can we establish consensus now?Edit

I am now going to summarise the two sides of the issue as fairly as I can. Please feel free to raise an issue if you think your argument has been represented unfairly.

Note that while I have summarised the salient points, I have left out bits of the discussion that went off on tangents and didn't enable us to reach any conclusions (e.g. the bit about transitive properties and felines predating dogs (?) ) Note that I am not recreating the discussion response by response, rather I have consolidated, clarified and made more concise the main points.

Let's be clear on the evidence we are working with (this seems to have caused some confusion during the discussion):

"Long before God created angel and man, He made the first beasts -- the Leviathans. I personally found them entertaining, but He was concerned they'd chomp the entire petri dish, so He locked them away. Why do you think He created Purgatory? To keep those clever, poisonous things out."
Death on the Leviathans
in Meet the New Boss
"Well, finally, the silence was deafening, so I went to look... to the home of the Prophet. You know, Leviathan can kill angels. There's a reason why Father locked them in Purgatory. They're the Piranha that would eat the whole aquarium. They're gone. The entire Garrison – dead. If there's anyone left at all, they're in hiding."
Castiel on the Leviathans
in Survival of the Fittest

Archangels vs LeviathansEdit

  • Argument 1 - Leviathans are stronger than most everything they predate. This is based on Death's quote above.
"Castiel and Death claimed that the Leviathans could "chomp the ENTIRE aquarium". They also both said that the Leviathans predate, and can kill angels. Archangels are part of this "aquarium", and are themselves a type of angel. It has been confirmed by Death, Castiel, and others that Leviathan can kill angels. Archangels are angels, so unless it is stated otherwise on the show, Leviahans can kill archangels (being angels, which Leviathan can kill). - EmpyreanSmoke
  • Argument 2 - Leviathan can kill angels, archangels are angels, therefore Leviathan can kill archangels. This is based on Castiel's quote above.
  • Rebuttal - Leviathans can kill angels yes, but not necessarily archangels. When it is stated that angels can be killed by leviathans, Castiel was really referring to angels (by and large) but not (necessarily) including archangels. When Death said that Leviathans can kill angels, he was referring generically to angels (i.e. excluding the exceptionally powerful), and furthermore archangels were already out of the picture by that point in the plot.
The mass of normal angels are not as powerful as archangels and 99 percent of the demons are not as powerful as Lilith, Alastair and Azazel, so just because a Leviathan may be able to kill or eat a low powered one it doesnt mean they can do the same to the more powerful ones.
When Death said Leviathans can kill angels, he was talking about the thousands or millions of lower level angels, and didn't think it would be necessary to distinguish the 4 archangels out of 1,000 or 1,000,000 angels. Besides that, he would have no point to, as two of the archangels were dead, and the other two are locked away in Lucifer's Cage. -- 104.238.216.26
Castiel later said in the finale that Leviathans can kill angels, but that was in direct reference to the fact that a garrison of angels was all dead. This wasn't referring to archangels, because there couldn't have been any archangels there at the time, because Raphael was dead, Gabriel was still thought to be dead, and Michael and Lucifer were still locked in Lucifer's Cage. So Castiel was only referring to lower angels, not archangels, as no archangels could have been in the garrison as far as we know.--SPNfan7908
  • Clarification - In Death's quote, when he says 'angel', he does refer to both regular angels and archangels.

Actually, your quotation only goes to show how "angels" are sometimes used as a catch-all phrase to include all types of angels, including archangels. It is canon (unless retconned in Season 11) that the Leviathans were the first creations of God. So "angels" in this context will include even the four most powerful angels--archangels, but angels nonetheless. And since this context extends to the next few lines that Leviathans could chomp off the petri dish, it actually serves as one of the bases why people think Leviathan can consume archangels. -FTWinchester

  • Possible compromise - List the Leviathans as a possible Weakness

I am open to listing it Leviathans as a Possible Weakness. As there no evidence every directly stated that they cannot kill or not kill the Archangels. Only that they can kill Angels, and Archangel no matter how strong is still an Angel first and leans more toward they can be killed by Leviathans. - Twilight Despair 5

  • Mitigating factors - 1. Castiel seems to be able to use his powers against Leviathans. 2. The power scale in Supernatural is far from being linear. 3. Leviathans turned out to be rather weak, all in all. But this is debatable. 4. Archangels aided God in beating back The Darkness.
  • For this topic, there are canon statements to support it, but also a lot of confusion due to contradictory scenes (why is Castiel sometimes able to use his powers against Leviathans?). - FTWinchester
  • the semantics are very confusing (i.e., Eve addressed Castiel as an "angel" despite being considered a Seraph) and the execution of the show leaves it confusing (i.e., Castiel can sometimes use his power against a Leviathan and sometimes he can't)...the power scale in Supernatural is far from being linear. --FTWinchester|
  • Leviathans were absolutely pathetic. They were basically immortal ghouls who wanted to stuff themselves with humans and whatever else they could get their jaws on. They had no fancy powers like the angels, they had to use COMPUTERS to locate people, they were getting owned with the stuff people could find in their bathrooms, a noob witch was capable of paralyzing one of them for days with no effort whatsoever, they couldn't even see ghosts which led to them being beaten by one, they were getting almost too easily dismembered by humans, they couldn't fly or teleport like angels and demons so they had to use cars, they liked eating each other and their leader got killed by a bone. --Bats In The Belfry
  • Just because Leviathans powers are more physical and not such a "light show" like in the archangels case, does not mean they are "pathetic". Leviathans are not just more physically powerful, they are more intelligent as well. Was Lucifer able to locate Sam and Dean ? - Why not just use a localization spell or ask a reaper to do it, seems he never had such an obvious idea. Leviathans managed to bypass this with complex algorithms, Archangels just rely on their power given by God, none of them could ever match up with with a Leviathan in terms of intelligence. Don Stark was a very powerful witch and certainly not a noob, - basically one of the few ways an archangel could defeat a Leviathan is to use the regular magic as well to immobilize a Leviathan. --93.132.9.88
  • "it was recently revealed that God needed the archangels to fight The Darkness, some editors feel that it just can't be the case, that Leviathans can defeat beings who helped God significantly." - Lambda1


Issue 3: SPN writerEdit

As for the supposed SPN writer, it should be clear that if we are to use any statements from said writer, we will need clear and explicit proof that said person is a writer, and that whoever is claiming to be the writer is indeed a writer. In other wikis, I've seen this done via previously established Twitter accounts (belonging to the writer) or statements on a previously established blog, or on the official website. If none of this is available, we cannot treat any input from said writer as legitimate.

Moving forwardEdit

Both sides are working with valid points. Argument 1 seems sound, and there is a reasonable implication that leviathans would be able to kill archangels. On the other hand, argument 2 is reductive and simplistic. At this point, allow me to briefly elaborate on the problem of interpretation.

This is a classic problem in interpreting any work of art or piece of writing. It doesn't matter which medium it is. Understand that by communicating through words, pictures, gestures - all of this is necessarily symbolic. There is an act in itself, and a second layer which is us interpreting and understanding that act. This is an old philosophical chestnut (and something you'll learn about in any introductory philosophy course in college.)

So this is an old problem. The key thing is to acknowledge ambiguity. There will always be some level of ambiguity. If you've studied a literature text of any sort, this is immediately obvious. A character says this, yes, but can he be trusted? What kind of scenario is he in? Is he generally trustworthy or does he have a reason to lie? And the words he uses, even if we trust him, can we be sure he meant it in one way or perhaps another? By nature of us not having direct access to someone else's consciousness, know that there is no such thing as absolute certainty in our interpretations. That does not mean finding evidence and justifications is meaningless - rather it means that we ought to accept the fallibility of our individual interpretations and depend even more on evidence and solid reasoning to justify our interpretations.

I saw a lot of sniping back and forth about how undoubtedly clear that one being was stronger than the other in this discussion. I think if you've looked through the argument reconstruction above, you can see that this isn't true. This is a complicated and nuanced discussion, and we must acknowledge that.

Now, back to argument 2, this argument is poor, and frankly those who argue that archangels are stronger than leviathans have the more sensible case with regard to this anyway. They are right in arguing that is is entirely reasonable to understand Castiel's statement as referring to angels in general. In other words, yes, 'Leviathans can kill your typical angel', no question about that. Must this statement absolutely include the archangels (which are almost godly when compared to your average angel)? Not necessarily. It is unreasonable to assert that it is completely clear that Castiel was referring to archangels, when he could very easily have meant your regular apple-pie angel. The context (angel garrison wiped out) does lend credence to this interpretation.

As for Death's comment, like I mentioned before, in this case it does make sense to understand angels to refer to angels as an entire species, given that the discussion is about macro-level elements. (God, angel, man - the terms here genuinely refer to the entirety of the species.) The difference is that of between angels (the regular ones) and 'angelkind' - unfortunately, the show does not specify exactly which it is, but that's why we have to investigate and involve the context and surrounding events in our interpretation.

At this point, we still do not have a consensus yet.

To add complications to the mix, the above arguments do not take into account many mitigating factors (as listed above.)

The thing about comparing the power levels of different beings is that the whole concept of 'power' in Supernatural is very poorly defined. It's not like Dragonball Z where you have power levels that actually have a numerical value attached to them. That being said, the concept still has some logic to it.

We know that say a vampire is more powerful than a human. An angel is more powerful than a vampire. An archangel is more powerful than an angel. God is more powerful than an archangel.

But how do we know this? If you're like me, you may have reached this conclusion from various moments on the show where one being raises his hands and flashes a white light and thus smites the other being - aha, therefore he must be more powerful, otherwise he wouldn't have been able to do that. But not all the creatures in the Supernatural universe have those kinds of magical powers. Vampires just have enhanced physical attributes and a bunch of other traits, but their power is of the purely physical kind. Likewise for werewolves. And then we have witches that cast spells and Lucifer snapping his fingers to destroy Castiel. How do you compare these? We can't. I like what FTWinchester said - the power scale in Supernatural is far from linear. Comparing the examples above, it's like comparing apples and oranges, it doesn't make sense.

I think this is the main source of the disagreements. There is no common scale of reference. I've pointed out how Argument 1 and Argument 2 lead to opposing conclusions. Argument 2 we've debated to death. Argument 1 I should note is not foolproof either. 'chomp the entire petri dish' is metaphorical, a figure of speech, y'know, or well, I could say hyperbole. Maybe it was a reference to how they wouldn't coexist harmoniously with other beings, unlike the fairly peaceful state of affairs between the other Supernatural monsters. This is genuinely an open question. Leviathans were made out to be a big bad, but heck, let's remember that Borax took them out. Chomp the entire petri dish? Really now.

When it comes down to it, this really is a tough nut to crack. I think we also need to understand that the writers are not perfect. The canon is sometimes inconsistent, and sometimes the writing decisions result in a need for retconning. And for all those who were around as Season 7 aired, you have to agree with user Bats in the Belfry that by the season finale, they weren't really big bads at all. By the time the next season came along, they'd been reduced to just another spawn in the Hunters' Journal, with specific weaknesses and ways to kill them. It's almost as if they were on the same level as vampires - a few enhanced physical traits, throw in intelligence and plots for world domination, and well that's about it. Not too terrifying.

But it is reasonable to grant that they are on a different level to most purgatory creatures. After all, angels can smite the latter, but not leviathans. And leviathans can chomp on regular angels. (Though somewhat unclear since Castiel was able to take down a few.) There is a pecking order going on.

But archangels? With their finger-snapping, reality-distorting, pagandeity-destroying ways? It's not so clear that leviathans can kill archangels anymore, is it? And it has never been explicitly stated that they can. That's my take on it at least, after reading through both sides several times.

How can we move forward? If the above conclusion sounds reasonable and fair, might I propose that we simply not mention it in the Archangels article? Or if we do, let's not list it as a weakness but rather add a detailed note about how unclear this is and refer to the key points that arose out of the discussion. I'm more in favour of the latter because there are some interesting bits of canonical information that would then be included in the article. But what does everyone else think? Cheers. Calebchiam Talk 09:38, October 7, 2015 (UTC)

Further discussionEdit

Issue1: 

"Was a proper consensus established here? If so, who was the discussion closed by and was there actually a group agreement? Consensus is not about the majority vote, so running a poll is just silly (not to mention highly abusable)."

Okay, I admit that it is probably not the best way, even if a majority agreed, it could still be wrong. But than, assuming we have 10 people arguing  about some topic, 8 of them come to the same conclusion and 2 don't agree ? How to decide in this wiki, if something can be considered as consensus ? Majority is a bad way, but it seems, there was no other way out. For myself, I considered that the consensus was made. 

"If the above is true, why is there still edit-warring?"

It seems, there is no consensus, if a consensus can't be established by majority. The users that have not agreed continued to edit the sites, while we undo these changes.  

"Has the SPN Writer been verified? Word-of-mouth is inadequate, there has to be established and open evidence that anyone can countercheck for themselves if we are to start taking material from supposed SPN writers."

The SPN Writer is not verified yet, but EmpyreanSmoke has released enough information, to verify it as soon as the list of the new writers will be released. 
I think, if we can't establish a consensus, we should exclude any statements on that matter (Neither Leviathans can kill archangels not Archangels can kill Leviathans) to satisfy both sides. Lambda1 (talk) 06:00, October 7, 2015 (UTC)
It's not quite right to say that we cannot establish a consensus. Consensus is about a general agreement amongst users and is more nuanced than how you've explained it. It's about making an honest attempt to address the key issues raised by both sides in a discussion and reaching a general (though not necessarily total) agreement on a state of affairs. In this case, it appears the issues on one side were not sufficiently addressed. We can, of course, do better. Calebchiam Talk 06:14, October 7, 2015 (UTC)

How do you suggest we reach a consensus then? If the majority's views don't sway when a concensus has been made, how can we resolve this correctly? What else can be done but go with what the majority thinks we should do? I think to satisfy both the majority and minority of views, we should at add it to the weaknesses, but also present the doubts users have, making it more of a possibly. EmpyreanSmoke (talk) 18:04, October 7, 2015 (UTC)

I've proposed a few possible courses of action above that should satisfy both sides. If everyone is okay with it, we can simply move forward with that as our new consensus. Consensus does not necessitate wholesale agreement from every side, but it is founded upon the general agreement of most/all parties by acknowledging the valid points from each side. It is tricky but certainly possible. Calebchiam Talk 01:29, October 8, 2015 (UTC)

Unless I am miss reading this trend. The Leviathans are never said to not be able to kill Archangels. Only that they can kill Angels. Archangels are angels first and foremost. Also, Death's season 7 quote he used Angel as collectively. It's redundant to all say Archangels and Angels. Their all part of the heavenly host. Also, Death's season 10 quote doesn't necessary state as evidence for or against their age. He lists the participants of the Darkness War, if the Leviathans were part of it. He would have listened them, Death never lied. I will say as a possible weakness, Leviathans make sense, for them to be an Archangel weakness. As while its unsure, there is no evidence they (can't) kill an Archangel.[[User:Twilight Despair 5|]] ([[The God of Creation]]) (talk) 03:11, October 8, 2015 (UTC)

Twilight, I think you need to very carefully before you move forward with that dangerously simplistic line of reasoning. Any native English speaker will tell you that people simply aren't very precise with language when speaking, and your categorisation argument of angel necessarily including archangels is something you can only be certain of in mathematics, but as already explained above, this is not the case based on the context. You are also misunderstanding why the season 10 quote was referred to at all. On some level, it makes sense that leviathans would be an archangel weakness, yes. But as painstakingly detailed above, surely you can see why on some level, it also makes sense that they wouldn't be. This is still a fairly open question. Calebchiam Talk 01:27, October 9, 2015 (UTC)
While I agree that if a person states for example "Humans have 2 legs" one should not consider that this applies for all humans, because some humans have lost their legs, so the set of persons who lost their legs is not a subset, because according to the statement "Humans have 2 legs", all humans have 2 legs. This would implicate that humans who lost their legs are no longer humans- this would be nonsense. In that context, it is just not strictly mathematical. However, we should consider that Castiel is quit often really precise in his statements and understands statements mostly literally, at least before Metatron copied all his movie and literature knowledge to Castiel's mind.
On several occasions, other angels referred archangels as angels (The following statements a only routhly recited)
  • Zachariah: "Of course he needs a vessel, Lucifer is an angel." (Season 5, first episode)
  • Lucifer to Sam as Lucifer visits him in a dream: "Of course, I am an angel,..." (Season 5, third episode)
  • Lucifer to Nick: "I am an angel"
There are some others, but I don't remember all the episodes in detail. Of course, sometimes the angels referred to the "archangels" as archangels, sometimes this is not the case. Lambda1 (talk) 04:56, October 9, 2015 (UTC)
What you've said here makes sense, though I have to correct you on the technical fact that referring to angels in general (and excluding archangels) through the term 'angels' is still a literal use of the term, as you seem to have implied otherwise. I am aware of the other references to them as angels, and there's certainly nothing I disagree with you on this point. However, it does not alleviate the ambiguity that is undeniably present here. Calebchiam Talk 06:22, October 9, 2015 (UTC)
I agree, however I did not want to imply that the term 'angel' was used differently in these cases. These are just more examples showing that it is not that easy to decide the exact semantics of the statements on that matter. I think it would be the best to include the key points of this discussion on the leviathans/ archangel pages to allow the readers developing their own view/opinion. Lambda1 (talk) 07:43, October 10, 2015 (UTC)

They are overrated.

Three leviathans have been decapitated by one black eyed demon. Yet they're stronger than archangels. Lol this wikia is a joke.

The demon Meg>>> the leviathans


Could you sign your posts please ? That would make it easier to follow the discussion. Michael was pulled by Sam into the cage at the end of season 5, does this now implicate that humans > archangels ? Certainly not. So, Meg decapitated 3 Leviathans with a weapon, yet these Leviathans are not dead. Lambda1 (talk) 19:24, October 8, 2015 (UTC)

First off he caught Michael by surprise and Michael was in a vessel. The THREE Levis were aware of Meg and attempted to attack her.

There too much just speculation on here. With the leviathans, they were at first huge enemies but then they've just gone away to purgatory, or maybe eat a human here or there if still on earth and are now generic monsters that Sam and Dean think could kill on random hunts when something sound like them. This doesn't mean hunters shouldnt have to worry but I guess some people just think they are cool. We can't be sure that when Death said angels he also meant archangels, as simply saying angels is too basic. He may have not even had a reason to talk about archangels because Rapheal and Gabriel were dead and Micheal and Lucifer were in hell, so why would he say they could fight against leviathans if they aren't even on the chess board of the world. God even made the archangels after leviathans Death said, so maybe he needed them ti fight the leviathans or improved on what he did wrong with the leviathans. What death said about this may not even matter though because the Darkness told Dean she didnt know Death and if God used the archangels to fight the Darkness too, what happened with the leviathans would also have been before his time, so he couldntve known. We should not say leviathans can be easily killed by archangels because we don't know they can, and God locked them in heaven not destroyed them, and we can't say leviathans can easily kill archangels because theres nothing to say that for sure either as in the end archangels were on earth, heaven or the universe while leviathans were in purgatory. --SPNfan7908 (talk) 06:10, October 10, 2015 (UTC)

If this is lambda I am sorry. I agree I was being a bit harsh,however I feel EmpyreanSmoke is being unfair when he puts leviathans down as a weakness for certainty when at the very least there is no proof a leviathan can kill an archangel.


SPNFan7908 is not me. However, I think we should include on the archangels page the possibility that leviathans may be a threat to them and on the leviathans page the possibility, that archangels may be a threat to them, including the key points of this discussion. If nobody complains, I will add this to the respective pages. Lambda1 (talk) 19:29, October 10, 2015 (UTC)

Seems nobody has complained or agreed to that for two days, as silence is the weakest form of an agreement, I think it is fine to integrate it into the articles. (Lambda1)  95.112.151.215 20:29, October 12, 2015 (UTC)

Why can't I edit this page? It says I can only look at the sources. I want to add the archangels to their weaknesses. They beat the darkness, so why can't they beat them?

Time of CreationEdit

I think it has clearly been established that Michael was the first born, so that means the archangels predate the leviathans, but do we know when God created the leviathans? The Chronology page states that the leviathans were created before the Big Bang, before the Universe. Is that even possible? The leviathans (and their close kin) seem so earth-bound. Kajune (talk) 17:32, June 9, 2016 (UTC)

Also, what does this page mean where it says "After his existence appearing in The Darkness"? So confusing. Kajune (talk) 13:20, June 20, 2016 (UTC) 

It was stated that Leviathans were created before angels. That makes no sense with the story of the Darkness. Personally, I think they just ignored S7 continuity or just chose to ignore it, but if we have to fit it somewhere, I'd say God created the Archangels, trapped the Darkness, created the leviathans and then the minor angels. I guess the line "After his existence appearing in The Darkness" refers to Amara having existed before Chuck, as Death said in the S10 finale. Ocegion (talk) 14:23, June 20, 2016 (UTC)

Why doesn't it make sense with the Darkness?

Amara->God->Archangels->Amara's imprisonment->Leviathans->Purgatory->Angels->Universe

Orion (T-B-C) 15:06, June 20, 2016 (UTC)

I think it doesn't make sense because both Leviathans and Amara are presented as the thing that happened before everything else, but in S11 they make no mention of Leviathans, and that seems like a big enough thing to be mentioned, but instead they tell a story in which there seems to be no possible gap for Leviathans. Ocegion (talk) 15:14, June 20, 2016 (UTC)

No, Death specifically said Leviathans came before angels and souls. Archangels are in a different category altogether.

Orion (T-B-C) 15:18, June 20, 2016 (UTC)

I always thought that maybe God made the Archangels in his image, so order and steadfastness and creative power and all that jazz, and Amara made the Leviathans in her image, so destruction and chaos and stuff, and God was like get those horrible things away from my precious universe and locked them away in Purgatory and locked Amara out in the void so she wouldn't create more and endanger his stuff, and then God started trying to remove all of Amara's chaotic influence from his creations, which led to the rank and file angels not having free will, disovered that this was a bad idea and created humans

Josephmisnomer (talk) 01:26, June 7, 2017 (UTC)

Leviathans and their Impossible Appetites Edit

I've had a thought, given that Leviathans seem to be able to eat humans in one sitting without a noticable change in mass, and that when they shapechange they don't seem to need to worry about differences in biomass between their current form and their intended form (like that bit where the little girl turns into and then eats the doctor). There seems to be no way that they could possibly fit so much matter into such a small space, so what if they pulled a purgatory and just shunted it sideways? I'm talking about the leviathans maybe having a sort of quantum doggie bag that sort of follows them around attached to their souls, not quite in this universe but not in heaven or hell or purgatory or what have you. So when the leviathan needs a little extra matter for a shapeshift it just reaches in to the quantum backpack and pulls out what it needs. This would also explain why it's always hungry, as nothing ever hits its stomach, and possibly even why you need the bone of the righteous mortal with the three bloods of the fallen - the quantum backpack not being in spacetime, heaven, hell, or purgatory, a bit of something from each dimension is enough to sort of squish the backpack from all four sides like a water balloon and cause it to explode out through the leviathan itself. Also, in theory something could be invented to track the disturbance on the rest of spacetime caused by the quantum backpack, which would be useful in identifying leviathans

Josephmisnomer (talk) 01:28, June 6, 2017 (UTC)

They are made of magic from before the physical universe was created, don't think too hard about it.

Kaestal (talk) 15:09, June 6, 2017 (UTC)

Decapitation Edit

Very trivial, but how would a Leviathan's decapitated head move and re-attach itself to its body? --Jmac 703 (talk) 00:45, February 24, 2018 (UTC)

Just a plot device or a plot hole, depending on how you look at it. Leviathan are said to actually die temporarily with their heads cut off, so there's no reason why they should be able to regenerate. Orion (T-B-C) 00:59, February 24, 2018 (UTC)

Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.