“Bitch” Vs. “Jerk”: Where We Discuss Who The Writers Screwed This Week/Season/Ever

[AwesomO4000]

1 hour ago, Bergamot said:

Sorry, I did not notice this until after I posted. Agree to disagree!

That wasn't for the discussion in general but for that line of thought (i.e. that I can't compare the two situations) specifically, so no problem. And discussion still open if you want - otherwise feel free to ignore!

1 hour ago, Bergamot said:

Dean is not choosing to sacrifice anyone, because he believes that everyone is about to die. He thinks the Titanic is about to sink. He thinks that he should help as many as possible get into the lifeboats, while from his point of view Bobby and Sam are objecting to lowering the lifeboats, and trying to prevent him from getting people on them, simply because they would rather pretend that are still going to keep the Titanic from going down.

I agree with you that Dean's lack of faith was the main message, but it wasn't only Sam and Bobby who used to think they could / should keep the Titanic from sinking. Dean was one of those people, too.*** Remember that as late "Sam, Interrupted" Dean told the imaginary psychiatrist is his head "I have to save everybody." And this was repeated back to Dean by Bobby in "PoNR," and Bobby was not happy - almost indignant actually - that Dean was considering toasting half the planet. Bobby even asked Dean something to the effect of "what happened to you, boy? Something is clearly broken in you," or something close to that, so something being wrong with Dean's thought process was maybe one of the messages in the episode for me, too, even if not the main one.

*** In fact that was the argument he used in "Jus in Bello." They all thought they were going to die there also. "PoNR" to the finale was pretty much just "JiB" on a grander scale, in my opinion.

1 hour ago, Bergamot said:

Dean is not portrayed by the show during this time as someone who is willing to break a few eggs to make his omelet, and so is losing his humanity. I think this again would be a distortion of the story that the show is telling. What happens with Dean is that, as the result of the accumulation of all his experiences since he returned from Hell, he loses his faith in his family, specifically in Sam.  Although he later regains it, this loss of faith is what the narrative frames as his mistake, and the sin he must repent of.

I don't know. I think Dean's lack of faith is related to this, but he was talked into the plan to break a few eggs to make an omelet. He was going to do it, despite having insisted before that you don't sacrifice anyone - even if that means everyone dying - because that's how you lose your humanity. Technically Dean was going to do that, too because ironically, he was going to lose his humanity doing it - since his body would become an angel. Which is pretty on the nose for me, so I don't know. You may be right that the show wasn't trying to show Dean as losing some of his humanity as part of the story, but I saw signs that maybe that was one of the messages, too, so I don't know. Maybe I need a rewatch to see if my impression is the same now.

At the moment for me though, it wasn't just Dean losing faith, that was a cause - as was desperation - but Dean was going to break those eggs, whereas Sam (having learned that lesson***) and Bobby weren't willing to go there.

*** Back when the brothers were actually allowed to learn stuff and have character growth. I miss those days.

1 hour ago, Bergamot said:

The example only works for this discussion, in my opinion, if the person who is telling you to send someone down to fix the problem even though they will drown, is actually lying to you and manipulating you and trying to push you toward the darkside, so that they can get you to release Lucifer.

Heh, except that except for "the turning you to the darkside"*** part this describes Michael and his angel agents just as well as Ruby. How many times did Michael send Uriel and Castiel down to tell Dean that he and Sam had to stop the seals from breaking (lie), that they didn't want Sam to use his powers (lie and manipulation), that they were fighting the demons (lie), that they needed Dean to torture Alistair, almost getting him killed even though there was no reason to torture Alistair to begin with (that was Uriel, but still manipulation.) Made sure Dean had hell memories (because I think Uriel had something to do with that: manipulation), thwart Dean's efforts to save Sam (sabotage.) Since Michael, too, wanted Sam to release Lucifer.

So yes, my example wasn't perfect, but what you are describing also applies to Michael as well as Ruby. Because for me Michael was no better than Ruby... actually in a way for me he was worse.

So for me, that just makes the two situations even more comparable. There was no guarantee that Michael was telling the truth about the people left getting to live in paradise. He had been lying through his agents - look what happened to Adam after all (and that was Michael's plan. Micahel is the one who told Zachariah to do resurrect Adam and do that to him) - the entire time.

We were pretty sure Ruby was lying about the spell working... But I was never sure that Michael wasn't lying about paradise either. I'd be about 65 - 35 that he was lying.

*** Well, in terms of Dean anyway. He did want Sam to go darkside.

Edited January 22, 2020 by AwesomO4000

[catrox14]

As to why this becomes a Bitch v Jerk thing is because the comparison was started by the writing in Point of No Return, when they decided to throw over the first rule of hunting is that you can't save everyone. I think that might have been Bobby who said that to Dean and/or Sam, because one or the other felt like shit for not saving everyone. Suddenly, in one line it became "we have to save everyone".  Thus, making Dean's choice to say yes to Michael the wrong choice because it might take out half the planet.

It makes Sam's plan to say yes to Lucifer better because he will overpower him and then save everyone. It was always a false equivalency IMO. And in order to justify Sam's choice they had to make someone look like they were making a worse choice and that fell to Dean. They dressed it up in Dean's sadness and giving up on Sam, when, IMO, it was only to make Sam the one and only hero.

I won't rehash my thoughts on Swan Song in full, they are all over this thread. It isn't fans picking at each other out of boredom or propping our respective faves. For me, it  is far more frustration that the writing in the latter half of season 5 changed the rules of hunting to set up Sam to save Errryone! Which came at Dean's expense. IMO

[Bergamot]

10 hours ago, AwesomO4000 said:

I think Dean's lack of faith is related to this, but he was talked into the plan to break a few eggs to make an omelet. He was going to do it, despite having insisted before that you don't sacrifice anyone - even if that means everyone dying - because that's how you lose your humanity.

No, he wasn't. He really wasn't. Being unable to save people is not the same thing as sacrificing them. Taking a risk that people might die, in order to save as many as you can, is not the same thing as sacrificing them. I see no evidence that this is what the show was saying, so just saying that it is the same thing does not convince me. 

Half the world dying was a possibility, not a fact. (We have referred to them as "potential" deaths.) Dean saw people dying every day in the Apocalypse, and wanted to do something to stop more people from dying. Unlike when Sam decided to say yes to Lucifer, when they actually had a way to trap him, they had no other options, literally no other way to stop Lucifer. Dean still wanted to save everyone, just as much he always had; he had just lost faith that there was ever going to be any way to do that.

If he said yes to Michael, and he then saw a way to stop even more people from dying -- if somehow he was able to come up with more metaphorical lifeboats and save 90% of the population -- he would do it. He wasn't going to stand in front of the lifeboats and refuse to let anyone at all on them, until and unless there was room for everyone. Or maybe he could have managed to stop the final battle from taking place at all -- if Sam could take control of the situation as he did, there is absolutely no reason that Dean could not have done it. Anything could have happened.

But here's the thing. What if Sam had done want Ruby wanted him to do, and carried out her orders to kill Nancy by tearing out her heart? Even if Dean and the others had figured out another way (which of course they did) Nancy still would have been dead. If Dean made his choice to say yes to Michael, half the population did not automatically drop dead. Dean chose no one to die. There was still the possibility of saving anyone, or maybe everyone. But if Sam made the choice to say yes to Ruby, after that, no matter what happened, there was no way to save Nancy.  She would be the one person that he had made it impossible to save. Because he had chosen to sacrifice her.

That's why the two situations are apples and oranges, as I think arhtee has already said so succinctly.  But now I am really starting to feel that there is nothing that we haven't already said. So it could be time for me to agree to disagree!

[Myrelle]

45 minutes ago, Bergamot said:

No, he wasn't. He really wasn't. Being unable to save people is not the same thing as sacrificing them. Taking a risk that people might die, in order to save as many as you can, is not the same thing as sacrificing them. I see no evidence that this is what the show was saying, so just saying that it is the same thing does not convince me.

IA with this.

The only difference to me will always be that the writers wanted only Sam to perform the bolded part, so they tried to paint Dean's decision to do it in the most negative light possible by making him appear hopeless and lacking in faith in Sam.

IOW, the whole idea of you can't save everyone, but you have to try if you even hope to have the slimmest chance of saving everyone was only meant to be written for Sam within the confines of the s5 finale, so Dean had to be removed , in order for them to do that-and this, even though you will never convince me either that Dean's intention wouldn't have been exactly the same as Sam's.

Plain and simple, it was the writers who didn't want Dean to succeed so they tried their damndest to make everyone believe that he wouldn't-and it worked for some.

For others(myself included) this was closer to the truth.

1 hour ago, catrox14 said:

I won't rehash my thoughts on Swan Song. They are all over this thread. It isn't fans . For me, it  is far more frustration that the writing in the latter half of season 5 changed the rules of hunting to set up Sam to save Errryone! Which came at Dean's expense.

 

Edited January 22, 2020 by Myrelle
Additions

[ahrtee]

Having just watched Jus in Bello on TNT for the umpteenth time, something I'd forgotten (and it seems most of us have):  

Dean's Hail Mary plan actually worked.  *He saved the 30 townspeople that they were all worrying about.*  The others--the police and FBI agents--were killed before the Winchesters got involved.  

If they'd "sacrificed" Nancy, the only other ones saved would have been Henriksen and the deputy, and I'm pretty sure the guilt would have destroyed them anyway.  So having Ruby tell them that "their plan was the one with the body count" was just a way to make them feel guilty and be more willing to listen to her in the future.  

No one--including the writers--ever gave them credit for saving the 30 townspeople, just blamed them for killing the two.  Going down swinging sometimes works, especially if they remember Hunters Rule #1.  

[Whodunnit]

Castiel is the reason I started watching the show and IMO Castiel was pretty badass in the last episode. I know my opinion is very very unpopular which is why I'm posting it here.

[DeeDee79]

7 minutes ago, Whodunnit said:

Castiel is the reason I started watching the show and IMO Castiel was pretty badass in the last episode. I know my opinion is very very unpopular which is why I'm posting it here.

There's an unpopular opinion thread as well as a Castiel thread. Just an fyi.

[AwesomO4000]

5 hours ago, ahrtee said:

Having just watched Jus in Bello on TNT for the umpteenth time, something I'd forgotten (and it seems most of us have):  

Dean's Hail Mary plan actually worked.  *He saved the 30 townspeople that they were all worrying about.*  The others--the police and FBI agents--were killed before the Winchesters got involved. 

I don't think I forgot. (Though it's possible I didn't emphasize it enough.) It's the reason why I compare the two situations. Landing the highly improbable landing didn't just happen in "Swan Song." There was precedence in "Jus in Bello," too. That's why I said Sam's "we should try doing this highly risky thing to try to save everyone" plan wasn't something new... it happened before in "JiB," except in that case it was Dean's idea and victory.

5 hours ago, ahrtee said:

If they'd "sacrificed" Nancy, the only other ones saved would have been Henriksen and the deputy, and I'm pretty sure the guilt would have destroyed them anyway.  So having Ruby tell them that "their plan was the one with the body count" was just a way to make them feel guilty and be more willing to listen to her in the future. 

Ruby's plan did include the townspeople, but even more important was that she said that it would destroy every demon in a certain area (Maybe a mile radius?) The added incentive from Ruby was "destroy." Destroyed demons couldn't come back or report to Lilith or go on to possess anyone else.

But I see your point. The only extra ones dead were Henricksen and the deputy (I think). Though looking at it that way, it seems even more unbelievable that that few people were able to defeat all of those demons, especially since two of them were on top of the building.

And yes, of course Ruby was trying to make them feel guilty to manipulate them. It's what she does.

[ahrtee]

40 minutes ago, AwesomO4000 said:

It's the reason why I compare the two situations.

Sorry--no matter how (or how often) you explain it, I still don't see the two actual situations--deliberately sacrificing someone (especially going solely on the word of a demon) vs. trusting themselves and hoping for the best--as being comparable.*  To each his/her own.

* Or even the gamble on saving half vs. all or nothing.  That seems like way too much of a gamble for me.  But again, JMO.

Edited January 23, 2020 by ahrtee

[AwesomO4000]

21 minutes ago, ahrtee said:

Sorry--no matter how (or how often) you explain it, I still don't see the two actual situations--deliberately sacrificing someone (especially going solely on the word of a demon) vs. trusting themselves and hoping for the best--as being comparable.  To each his/her own.

It's because I personally find Michael just as bad as Ruby. I think he was lying, and had he killed Lucifer as he wanted, I thought the entire world would suffer - much like what the angels in the AU did (which kind of supported my impressions of season 5 Michael).

So Dean thinking giving Michael a powerful vessel, even if he hoped he could turn him around (which I don't personally think was discussed as what Dean was actually thinking or planning to do), and based on their interaction in "The Song Remains the Same" I doubt would work anyway, it looked to me like Dean was going to let some people be killed (Just because it's not technically a "sacrifice" doesn't make them any less dead) on the off chance that some would live and not be miserable. Because he was trusting that Michael - who had been lying all along - would somehow now keep his word.

"Swan Song" Michael further convinced me. If Lucifer - his brother who he supposedly raised and loved - couldn't convince Michael to just "walk off the chess board" and not do this destructive thing that might kill a bunch of people, then how was Dean supposed to convince him.

At least Sam - as crazy and stupid as his plan was - had a Lucifer with vulnerabilities and character defects to exploit. Michael was like a broken record forever stuck on doing this thing, no matter how destructive and senseless it was.

It's also because I see Sam as desperate, broken, and having more than just self-serving motives in "Jus in Bello." So I don't label his motives with "evil" and Dean's as "good." For me it's much more complicated than that, so yeah, we aren't going to agree here.

I can see your point if looking at it from a more right / wrong or black / white perspective. But I don't look at things that way.

Edited January 23, 2020 by AwesomO4000

[ahrtee]

4 minutes ago, AwesomO4000 said:

It's because I personally find Michael just as bad as Ruby. I think he was lying, and had he killed Lucifer as he wanted, I thought the entire world would suffer - much like what the angels in the AU did (which kind of supported my impressions of season 5 Michael).

You're welcome to your interpretation.  AFAIK, "our" Michael didn't give any clue that he was going to destroy the world (or turn evil), since the only time we saw him, in The Song Remains the Same, he seemed pretty level-headed--a bit smug, but not Machiavellian.  But I'm getting a strong sense of deja vu here in this discussion.  Since I seem to remember going over all this before and we could never agree then, I think we can agree to drop it this time.  

BTW, I'm not seeing things in a black/white perspective.  I'm just not seeing it in *your* perspective, which is entirely different.  

[AwesomO4000]

21 hours ago, ahrtee said:

AFAIK, "our" Michael didn't give any clue that he was going to destroy the world (or turn evil), since the only time we saw him, in The Song Remains the Same, he seemed pretty level-headed--a bit smug, but not Machiavellian. 

We "saw" him in "Point of No Return" when he came to give Zachariah orders to resurrect Adam for the plan to trick him and secure Dean as a host, thoughtlessly killing two innocent people while doing it. And since it was Michael's idea and plan to let Lucifer out of hell, knowing what Lucifer would unleash on earth to do so, just so he could kill him doesn't seem so level-headed to me, and yeah also pretty Machiavellian, too.

But yes, we can agree to disagree.

21 hours ago, ahrtee said:

BTW, I'm not seeing things in a black/white perspective.  I'm just not seeing it in *your* perspective, which is entirely different. 

Fair enough.

 

I'll shut up for now.

Edited January 23, 2020 by AwesomO4000

[BabySpinach]

I love that we can have civil back-and-forths here, and even concede to an impasse without any feelings hurt (hopefully!).

This discussion has honestly been making my head spin. Does the Jus in Bello scenario compare to the Apocalypse scenario? I actually find myself waffling back and forth on that. 

Perhaps if Jus in Bello had taken place over a longer period of time with a larger cast, and every passing hour ended up with another person dead, Nancy's sacrifice would have eventually seemed more reasonable as the only possible solution to save whoever was left. There's also the fact that the situation in Jus in Bello was indirectly the Winchesters' fault, in that they were the sole "cause" of the problem, while the Apocalypse had been intricately orchestrated over eons and Dean and Sam were only the essential final pawns in the Great Divine Plan(tm). And there's the pure scale to consider: thousands of people killed by Lucifer vs. the <100 at the station. I think those factors count for something, too. 

Overall, I think that sacrificing Nancy to save Sam and Dean's (and whoever happened to be with them) skins would have been less sympathetic than Dean letting Michael have his fight and at least, for certain, keeping half the planet alive while smoking the Devil for good. But I'm not sure I could adequately defend that impression if truly pressed on it. 😵

[ahrtee]

28 minutes ago, AwesomO4000 said:

We "saw" him in "Point of No Return" when he came to give Zachariah orders to resurrect Adam for the plan to trick him and secure Dean as a host, thoughtlessly killing two innocent people while doing it. And since it was Michael's idea and plan to let Lucifer out of hell, knowing what Lucifer would unleash on earth to do so, just so he could kill him doesn't seem so level-headed to me, and yeah also pretty Machiavellian, too.

Actually, we didn't "see" (or "hear") anything from Michael.   Zach was talking to "his boss" without specifying names. 

But even if he was following Michael's orders, as far as we know, all he told Zach was to "get Dean to say yes" and all the ideas, evil plans and casual killings were Zach getting it done.  It was Azazel's plan to let Lucifer out of hell.  The angels didn't oppose it, because they were confident they could get rid of him once and for all and bring about Paradise.  That wasn't evil, just wrong-headed.

 

[Katy M]

10 hours ago, ahrtee said:

But even if he was following Michael's orders, as far as we know, all he told Zach was to "get Dean to say yes" and all the ideas, evil plans and casual killings were Zach getting it done.  It was Azazel's plan to let Lucifer out of hell.  The angels didn't oppose it, because they were confident they could get rid of him once and for all and bring about Paradise.  That wasn't evil, just wrong-headed.

I think it's pretty clear that Michael was the "boss" that Zach was referring to.  And, he killed a bartender and that out-of-work guy for no other reason than to have a conversation with Zach.

[gonzosgirrl]

1 hour ago, Katy M said:

I think it's pretty clear that Michael was the "boss" that Zach was referring to.  And, he killed a bartender and that out-of-work guy for no other reason than to have a conversation with Zach.

To be clear, I think Michael probably was a winged dick, but I don't think there was malicious intention to kill those guys in the bar, any more than Castiel intended to blind Pamela. They were collateral damage.

IMO, Michael said 'get it done' and then didn't trouble himself with the details. Uriel and Zachariah and their ilk seemed to have a hard-on for hurting/killing the dirty little apes, Zachariah in particular took pleasure in it.

[Katy M]

13 minutes ago, gonzosgirrl said:

To be clear, I think Michael probably was a winged dick, but I don't think there was malicious intention to kill those guys in the bar, any more than Castiel intended to blind Pamela. They were collateral damage.

But, Cas warned Pamela to turn back.  Michael sought Zach out at that exact second.  Seems to me that he could have just shaken the building a bit and Zach would have known enough to go outside.  Or, Michael could have probably zapped him outside.  If Cas knew that he would hurt Pamela, there's no way Michael didn't know that he would kill those two guys. He hasn't been portrayed as a good guy, IMO.

[DeeDee79]

20 minutes ago, Katy M said:

But, Cas warned Pamela to turn back.  Michael sought Zach out at that exact second.  Seems to me that he could have just shaken the building a bit and Zach would have known enough to go outside.  Or, Michael could have probably zapped him outside.  If Cas knew that he would hurt Pamela, there's no way Michael didn't know that he would kill those two guys. He hasn't been portrayed as a good guy, IMO.

Cas also kept trying to communicate with Dean even though he knew that he couldn't hear his real voice. Each time caused Dean pain not to mention shattering all of the glass around him. Add that to Pamela's eyes and his indifference at all of the hunters that were slaughtered by the rising of the witnesses. Cas could be as bad of a guy as Michael supposedly was but no one thinks of him as anything other than one of the good guys. Point being I don't think that one scene where we don't know for sure who Zachariah was getting his orders from points to Michael being a bad guy. Just IMO.

[gonzosgirrl]

21 minutes ago, Katy M said:

But, Cas warned Pamela to turn back.  Michael sought Zach out at that exact second.  Seems to me that he could have just shaken the building a bit and Zach would have known enough to go outside.  Or, Michael could have probably zapped him outside.  If Cas knew that he would hurt Pamela, there's no way Michael didn't know that he would kill those two guys. He hasn't been portrayed as a good guy, IMO.

I don't say he was a good guy, just not malicious like Zachariah. I think he was more indifferent to the human cost than going out of his way to hurt/kill. Which is why I think he would have honored his word to Dean (from The Song Remains The Same). I also think he would have killed Zachariah in a heartbeat if that was what it took for Dean to say yes, considering he killed Anna for interfering with his plans.

[Katy M]

13 minutes ago, DeeDee79 said:

Cas could be as bad of a guy as Michael supposedly was but no one thinks of him as anything other than one of the good guys.

Cas is a bad guy half the time. He certainly was for most of Season 4 and all of Season 6.

 

12 minutes ago, gonzosgirrl said:

I also think he would have killed Zachariah in a heartbeat if that was what it took for Dean to say yes, considering he killed Anna for interfering with his plans.

That to me IS malicious.  Zach and Anna were his "people."  Killing Zach to get Dean to say yes, is no better than killing Nancy to get rid of the demons.

[DeeDee79]

8 minutes ago, Katy M said:

Cas is a bad guy half the time. He certainly was for most of Season 4 and all of Season 6.

As are most angels. My point was that any angel would have done the same during the Zachariah diner incident including Cas. The difference is Cas is considered a good guy by most of fandom while original Michael is seen as a bad guy even though he only made one appearance before the diner incident. 

12 minutes ago, Katy M said:

Killing Zach to get Dean to say yes, is no better than killing Nancy to get rid of the demons.

Killing Nancy is worse because Sam and Dean are human. Humans (should) have morals while angels don't appear to have any.

[Katy M]

8 minutes ago, DeeDee79 said:

Killing Nancy is worse because Sam and Dean are human. Humans (should) have morals while angels don't appear to have any.

Not having morals doesn't excuse you from bad behavior.  Angels are thousands of years old.  They could have figured out morals by now if they'd wanted.

[DeeDee79]

10 minutes ago, Katy M said:

Not having morals doesn't excuse you from bad behavior.  Angels are thousands of years old.  They could have figured out morals by now if they'd wanted.

You also can't compare angels killing angels and demon killing demons to humans killing other humans. It's not the same no matter how you put it.

Edited January 23, 2020 by DeeDee79
word choice

[Katy M]

16 minutes ago, DeeDee79 said:

You also can't compare angels killing angels and demon killing demons to humans killing other humans. It's not the same no matter how you put it.

It actually is the same.  They're killing their own kind.

[DeeDee79]

Just now, Katy M said:

It actually is the same.  They're killing their own kind.

In your opinion. Supernatural creatures and humans aren't the same on the show. Humans have a moral compass that the supernatural doesn't have and don't care about. Despite them being around for thousands of years they are entirely different entities. On the show we see creatures kill their own all the time and it's considered normal because they're creatures. When humans kill each other it's considered evil and monstrous. It's not the same in my opinion.

[gonzosgirrl]

6 minutes ago, DeeDee79 said:

In your opinion. Supernatural creatures and humans aren't the same on the show. Humans have a moral compass that the supernatural doesn't have and don't care about. Despite them being around for thousands of years they are entirely different entities. On the show we see creatures kill their own all the time and it's considered normal because they're creatures. When humans kill each other it's considered evil and monstrous. It's not the same in my opinion.

Demons I get, people are crazy. - Dean Winchester

😀

[DeeDee79]

3 minutes ago, gonzosgirrl said:

Demons I get, people are crazy. - Dean Winchester

😀

😆

[ahrtee]

22 minutes ago, Katy M said:

Not having morals doesn't excuse you from bad behavior.  Angels are thousands of years old.  They could have figured out morals by now if they'd wanted.

Actually, yes, it does.  Having no morals means not having rules of behavior.  Being thousands (or millions) of years old means that they have a different perspective on creatures that live just for the blink of an eye.  Killing people isn't "bad behavior" for Death, any more than most of us have existential angst for killing an ant.  

Angels don't have souls.  Souls seem to be the human "moral compass."  

And about figuring out morals "if they wanted," well, the same goes for Free Will or love or any other human emotion.  They were told to observe and follow orders.  The idea is that Michael was following God's original orders, not making up his own.  He was allowing the Apocalypse because he thought that's what his father wanted and he was "the good son" who always followed orders unquestioningly.  That's what he told Lucifer when he was asked not to fight. 

Remember Anna's statement that disobedience was their Murder One.  That was the only crime the angels recognized, which is why she and Uriel could be killed.  Not because Michael was vindictive, but because he was blind to anything except following orders.  That makes him a puppet and possibly a dick, but not evil.  And IIRC, AU Michael didn't destroy his world because he was evil.  He was in a fit of fury because, after doing just what his father asked, God/Chuck still didn't come back.  The same reason Lucifer said he was going to break all of Chuck's toys in season 12.  The same reason Amara was planning to destroy everything.  

And since they've already made Chuck into the Biggest Big Bad, we can see that everything he did was out of boredom, not malice (or, not originally.)   

Basically, only humans are capable of "evil" because they're the only creatures who do have morals, and can choose to go against them.  (Of course, that's Free Will...)

 

[AwesomO4000]

3 hours ago, ahrtee said:

He was in a fit of fury because, after doing just what his father asked, God/Chuck still didn't come back.  The same reason Lucifer said he was going to break all of Chuck's toys in season 12. 

Wouldn't that mean that Lucifer isn't really evil either then?

I don't think I'd want to say that he wasn't. But basically he was branded "evil" and defying God because he didn't respect humans and chose to show that contempt.

3 hours ago, ahrtee said:

He was allowing the Apocalypse because he thought that's what his father wanted and he was "the good son" who always followed orders unquestioningly.

Except that one of God's directives in this verse was to love and respect humans above even God if I remember correctly. It's why Lucifer (supposedly) had a hissy fit (as he told us ad nauseum). Lucifer didn't respect humans and was punished for it.

So to me, one supposed directive (kill Lucifer) contradicted the other (respect, protect, love humans) and Michael chose which one he wanted to follow. And apparently angels suck at making their own decisions - even Castiel (see season 6, for example. Or season 8. Or season 12. Pretty much any time poor Castiel tries to make a major decision.)

And technically killing those people in the bar by indifference was going against God's orders / words to live by, since he obviously wasn't loving or respecting them.

Disrespecting and killing humans through indifference rather than on purpose is still killing them and not respecting God's creation. It might even be worse in some situations, because God apparently sometimes had angels carry out his wrath on humans, so that might be considered ordered killing, but to not even consider humans were worth considering would be a pretty big disrespect.

In my opinion, Michael isn't only a dick. He's an indifferent, dangerous dick.

 

[gonzosgirrl]

12 minutes ago, AwesomO4000 said:

Wouldn't that mean that Lucifer isn't really evil either then?

I don't think I'd want to say that he wasn't. But basically he was branded "evil" and defying God because he didn't respect humans and chose to show that contempt.

Except that one of God's directives in this verse was to love and respect humans above even God if I remember correctly. It's why Lucifer (supposedly) had a hissy fit (as he told us ad nauseum). Lucifer didn't respect humans and was punished for it.

So to me, one supposed directive (kill Lucifer) contradicted the other (respect, protect, love humans) and Michael chose which one he wanted to follow. And apparently angels suck at making their own decisions - even Castiel (see season 6, for example. Or season 8. Or season 12. Pretty much any time poor Castiel tries to make a major decision.)

And technically killing those people in the bar by indifference was going against God's orders / words to live by, since he obviously wasn't loving or respecting them.

Disrespecting and killing humans through indifference rather than on purpose is still killing them and not respecting God's creation. It might even be worse in some situations, because God apparently sometimes had angels carry out his wrath on humans, so that might be considered ordered killing, but to not even consider humans were worth considering would be a pretty big disrespect.

In my opinion, Michael isn't only a dick. He's an indifferent, dangerous dick.

 

IMO, the difference is in intent. Was Lucifer's rebellion evil? No. But the things he chose to do to humanity as a result of rebelling and being cast out were, because he did them with malice of forethought, for want of a better description. Michael's actions were not carried out for the sole purpose of hurting/killing humanity just to get back at his father. That doesn't make his victims of collateral damage any less dead, but it does, in my opinion, speak towards his character.

It says, to me, that Dean wasn't being entirely foolish in his choice to say yes to him (OG Michael, not AU Michael). And if we go by how Michael apparently treated Adam over the hundreds of years in the cage, his lack of unholy wrath after escaping it, and his decision to help them (with the Purgatory rift, etc) after they told him what and who his father really was, all point to him not being as much of a winged dick after all.

Edited January 23, 2020 by gonzosgirrl

[Castiels Cat]

5 hours ago, DeeDee79 said:

As are most angels. My point was that any angel would have done the same during the Zachariah diner incident including Cas. The difference is Cas is considered a good guy by most of fandom while original Michael is seen as a bad guy even though he only made one appearance before the diner incident. 

Killing Nancy is worse because Sam and Dean are human. Humans (should) have morals while angels don't appear to have any.

Didn't Dean kill Zachariah because he was torturing Sam and Adam to death to get him to say yes.

[DeeDee79]

1 minute ago, Castiels Cat said:

Didn't Dean kill Zachariah because he was torturing Sam and Adam to death to get him to say yes.

Yes along with torturing Sam and Dean a few times to get them to say yes.

[Castiels Cat]

19 hours ago, AwesomO4000 said:

It's because I personally find Michael just as bad as Ruby. I think he was lying, and had he killed Lucifer as he wanted, I thought the entire world would suffer - much like what the angels in the AU did (which kind of supported my impressions of season 5 Michael).

So Dean thinking giving Michael a powerful vessel, even if he hoped he could turn him around (which I don't personally think was discussed as what Dean was actually thinking or planning to do), and based on their interaction in "The Song Remains the Same" I doubt would work anyway, it looked to me like Dean was going to let some people be killed (Just because it's not technically a "sacrifice" doesn't make them any less dead) on the off chance that some would live and not be miserable. Because he was trusting that Michael - who had been lying all along - would somehow now keep his word.

"Swan Song" Michael further convinced me. If Lucifer - his brother who he supposedly raised and loved - couldn't convince Michael to just "walk off the chess board" and not do this destructive thing that might kill a bunch of people, then how was Dean supposed to convince him.

At least Sam - as crazy and stupid as his plan was - had a Lucifer with vulnerabilities and character defects to exploit. Michael was like a broken record forever stuck on doing this thing, no matter how destructive and senseless it was.

It's also because I see Sam as desperate, broken, and having more than just self-serving motives in "Jus in Bello." So I don't label his motives with "evil" and Dean's as "good." For me it's much more complicated than that, so yeah, we aren't going to agree here.

I can see your point if looking at it from a more right / wrong or black / white perspective. But I don't look at things that way.

Except that there is no evidence to say Michael was lying. He treated Dean with respect even when he said no. There was no retaliation for saying no and no retaliation for killing Zachariah. He treated John with respect and left him completely undamaged.

Now he's come back and again... no retaliation. No vindictiveness. He appears to be exactly what he always was. somebody who followed rules and kept promises. 

He helped them because he believed them and saw that Chuck was dangerous. There is a chance he could go Gonzo angry like AU Michael. Hopefully it will be directed at Chuck in a useful way because he has developed a healthy symbiotic relationship with his host human.

3 minutes ago, DeeDee79 said:

Yes along with torturing Sam and Dean a few times to get them to say yes.

That was Zachariah. Zachariah was given a job and he chose do do it based on his personality. 

[Castiels Cat]

5 hours ago, gonzosgirrl said:

I don't say he was a good guy, just not malicious like Zachariah. I think he was more indifferent to the human cost than going out of his way to hurt/kill. Which is why I think he would have honored his word to Dean (from The Song Remains The Same). I also think he would have killed Zachariah in a heartbeat if that was what it took for Dean to say yes, considering he killed Anna for interfering with his plans.

Exactly. Not all Angels are alike. Zachariah was a sadistic zealot which Kurt Fuller excelled in portraying. 

[Castiels Cat]

5 hours ago, DeeDee79 said:

Cas also kept trying to communicate with Dean even though he knew that he couldn't hear his real voice. Each time caused Dean pain not to mention shattering all of the glass around him. Add that to Pamela's eyes and his indifference at all of the hunters that were slaughtered by the rising of the witnesses. Cas could be as bad of a guy as Michael supposedly was but no one thinks of him as anything other than one of the good guys. Point being I don't think that one scene where we don't know for sure who Zachariah was getting his orders from points to Michael being a bad guy. Just IMO.

Initially Cas thought Dean would be able to hear him because of his role as the righteous man and leader of the Angel's or whatever they were calling it then. He explains that to Dean.

[AwesomO4000]

24 minutes ago, gonzosgirrl said:

And if we go by how Michael apparently treated Adam over the hundreds of years in the cage, his lack of unholy wrath after escaping it, and his decision to help them (with the Purgatory rift, etc) after they told him what and who his father really was, all point to him not being as much of a winged dick after all.

The character growth was good, I agree... although apparently he didn't see fit to save Sam in any way from Lucifer, so apparently he played favorites, and/or held grudges.

26 minutes ago, gonzosgirrl said:

It says, to me, that Dean wasn't being entirely foolish in his choice to say yes to him (OG Michael, not AU Michael).

I didn't think Dean was foolish in either case. I entirely understood Dean's position in both cases - in case that wasn't apparent before. I just happened to be sympathetic to Sam's position as well - in both cases we were talking about. In "Jus in Bello" it would have been wrong, but Sam was desperate to save his brother and felt guilty that this was all happening because of him (in Sam's mind, all of it was his fault). He didn't want everyone to die because of him, so if there was a good chance most could be saved, that idea was appealing - even if the process to get there was certainly not. And after "Mystery Spot" Sam was not in a good place - at all. So his judgement slipped - as it would again. He's human and I'm okay with that.

Same with Dean's position. I personally don't think Michael was at all trustworthy. His choice of henchmen shows he wasn't a great judge of character, nor did he care what happened to get what he wanted done as long as his own hands didn't get dirty.*** But Dean was desperate to save the people he loved and at least save some of the people. He didn't have faith that anyone around him could help, so he thought only he had the chance to get at least some of the people saved (a little hubris there, but it's certainly better than the relentless self-esteem issues.) Michael was a sure bet to get at least some people saved, even if the means to do so weren't all that great, so he considered it. Entirely understandable.

As I said with my previous submarine example, I can't imagine having to make that kind of decision, and I certainly wouldn't want to. I respect those who do have to make those kids of decisions - in real life also (doctors, rescue workers, soldiers, etc.) - and sometimes they are going to screw up trying to make them.

But what I think wasn't the point of this discussion earlier. It was what the writers at that time thought. And that I could only guess at... and my guess was that they were going to say "no" with prejudice to any plan that didn't do the gung ho "we have to save everyone or die trying!" thing, and that the writing was going to reflect that ...no matter how far-fetched the plan to save everyone was or how much logical sense the alternative made. the ending they wanted was the heroic "everyone was saved" one - well sort of since that's not exactly what they did either time.

I never said that what I saw as their position was entirely clear or made total sense after all.

*** (Which I personally find off-putting in a powerful being. If you have a mission, own it, and do your own damn dirty work to get it done, don't pass the buck. But that's just my opinion.)

[gonzosgirrl]

4 minutes ago, AwesomO4000 said:

The character growth was good, I agree... although apparently he didn't see fit to save Sam in any way from Lucifer, so apparently he played favorites, and/or held grudges.

This is something I never really got. Castiel somehow took Sam's still-corporeal body (wtf*) out of the cage, but his soul was still there. So how could Michael/Adam have done anything to protect or save Sam? The whole thing is just weird and requires copious hand-waving. *That goes for Dean being 'carved and sliced' while his body was in the ground. But then we see Bobby and other human bodies in their cells in Hell. Yet he was just a ball of soul-light for Sam to bring back. So did his meat suit stay behind? My head hurts.

[Castiels Cat]

15 minutes ago, AwesomO4000 said:

The character growth was good, I agree... although apparently he didn't see fit to save Sam in any way from Lucifer, so apparently he played favorites, and/or held grudges.

I didn't think Dean was foolish in either case. I entirely understood Dean's position in both cases - in case that wasn't apparent before. I just happened to be sympathetic to Sam's position as well - in both cases we were talking about. In "Jus in Bello" it would have been wrong, but Sam was desperate to save his brother and felt guilty that this was all happening because of him (in Sam's mind, all of it was his fault). He didn't want everyone to die because of him, so if there was a good chance most could be saved, that idea was appealing - even if the process to get there was certainly not. And after "Mystery Spot" Sam was not in a good place - at all. So his judgement slipped - as it would again. He's human and I'm okay with that.

Same with Dean's position. I personally don't think Michael was at all trustworthy. His choice of henchmen shows he wasn't a great judge of character, nor did he care what happened to get what he wanted done as long as his own hands didn't get dirty.*** But Dean was desperate to save the people he loved and at least save some of the people. He didn't have faith that anyone around him could help, so he thought only he had the chance to get at least some of the people saved (a little hubris there, but it's certainly better than the relentless self-esteem issues.) Michael was a sure bet to get at least some people saved, even if the means to do so weren't all that great, so he considered it. Entirely understandable.

As I said with my previous submarine example, I can't imagine having to make that kind of decision, and I certainly wouldn't want to. I respect those who do have to make those kids of decisions - in real life also (doctors, rescue workers, soldiers, etc.) - and sometimes they are going to screw up trying to make them.

But what I think wasn't the point of this discussion earlier. It was what the writers at that time thought. And that I could only guess at... and my guess was that they were going to say "no" with prejudice to any plan that didn't do the gung ho "we have to save everyone or die trying!" thing, and that the writing was going to reflect that ...no matter how far-fetched the plan to save everyone was or how much logical sense the alternative made. the ending they wanted was the heroic "everyone was saved" one - well sort of since that's not exactly what they did either time.

I never said that what I saw as their position was entirely clear or made total sense after all.

*** (Which I personally find off-putting in a powerful being. If you have a mission, own it, and do your own damn dirty work to get it done, don't pass the buck. But that's just my opinion.)

Well Cas used to think of Sam as an abomination perhaps Michael still does.

Dean does not suffer from hubris. That's Sam's thing. Dean was desperate to save his loved one's and yes he should never have said yes to AU Michael to do it. It was not hubris. I wrote an article about Dean's tragic fall in season 13 and which Greek Delphic tenet he failed... ie. Which flaw did him in. It was nothing to excess. Dean loves too much.

Hubris is Sam saying that he has to be the one to save the world because Dean isn't strong enough which is how Ruby corrupts him. She fawns over him and tells him that Dean is weak and only Sam is strong enough to stop Lucifer.  Or Sam rushing to use the black magic in the BotD (another human sacrifice too) because he has to be the one to save Dean this time. Something that Sam said in season 10. Sam is leading the charge because it cannot be a vampire or an angel this time.

Probably my favorite Sam moment of hubris moment was in AU Apocalypse when they met Maggie and they guy on the road to the vampire cave mmassacre She tells Sam not to go to the caves because they lost their entire party their and that the two of them barely made it out alive. Sam is all flush with pride and clucks with how great a hunter he is. We got this. What follows is the most pathetic excuse of a hunting party that I have seen. it was so bad I actually believed that Dean was dying from the poisoned bullet wound. Normally he can take a nest on his own. That performance was Sam's hubris in fine form.

Dean has an inferiority complex. This is the opposite of hubris. 

4 minutes ago, gonzosgirrl said:

This is something I never really got. Castiel somehow took Sam's still-corporeal body (wtf*) out of the cage, but his soul was still there. So how could Michael/Adam have done anything to protect or save Sam? The whole thing is just weird and requires copious hand-waving. *That goes for Dean being 'carved and sliced' while his body was in the ground. But then we see Bobby and other human bodies in their cells in Hell. Yet he was just a ball of soul-light for Sam to bring back. So did his meat suit stay behind? My head hurts.

The writers' heads never hurt because they so rarely think about this stuff

 

Edited January 23, 2020 by Castiels Cat

[DeeDee79]

30 minutes ago, Castiels Cat said:

Initially Cas thought Dean would be able to hear him because of his role as the righteous man and leader of the Angel's or whatever they were calling it then. He explains that to Dean.

I know that. He knew that Dean couldn't hear him but he still kept trying to talk to him and he could surely see the damage that it was doing to him. My post was about how if Michael was malicious then Cas should be also since angels as a whole do not concern themselves with collateral damage.

42 minutes ago, Castiels Cat said:

That was Zachariah. Zachariah was given a job and he chose do do it based on his personality. 

I know that. What is your point?

[Castiels Cat]

5 minutes ago, DeeDee79 said:

I know that. He knew that Dean couldn't hear him but he still kept trying to talk to him and he could surely see the damage that it was doing to him. My post was about how if Michael was malicious then Cas should be also since angels as a whole do not concern themselves with collateral damage.

I know that. What is your point?

The same one that Gonzogirl made more eloquently. Michael probably said to get Dean to say yes and didn't bother with specifics.  Zachariah then went about getting Dean to say yes which involved torture because of Zachariah's temperament and personal attitudes. We do not have evidence that connects Michael to the torture.

[AwesomO4000]

8 minutes ago, Castiels Cat said:

Except that there is no evidence to say Michael was lying. He treated Dean with respect even when he said no. There was no retaliation for saying no and no retaliation for killing Zachariah. He treated John with respect and left him completely undamaged.

I think I didn't explain what I meant very well.

I said "lying" when I should have said misleading. When Michael - or actually mainly the other angels, because Michael wasn't clear - said that there would be "paradise" on earth, it wasn't clear what that meant. The angel's idea of paradise might entirely suck for many humans... and considering what Castiel said about free will at the end of "Swan Song" and the angels' idea of heaven, I'm betting that's a pretty good guess.

So Dean may have been under the impression that Michael would save half or most of humanity, but I don't think that meant to Dean what it was necessarily going to be in the actual case if Michael won. My guess was pretty much not at all.

And Michael didn't really care about that. He cared about following orders and killing Lucifer. So much so that he didn't really have a good reign on the rest of his angels, who were doing pretty much what they wanted. If he killed Lucifer, and what happened isn't what he thought would happen - as say if he thought God would come back and he didn't - things might even have more ended up how they did in the AU.

In other words, I think Michael was going to be sort of like one of those genies who supposedly gives you what you wish for, but it's not exactly what you meant. I don't think Michael's version of saving half humanity and Michael's would've been the same. That's more of what I meant.

3 minutes ago, Castiels Cat said:

Dean has an inferiority complex. This is the opposite of hubris. 

Much of the time, yes, but not all of the time.

In season 9, Dean made it clear that he was the one with the mark, so he was the only one who got to have a say in deciding what would be done. That's not an inferiority complex. That's hubris.

Dean also decided for Sam that he wouldn't give Sam the chance to decide for himself whether he wanted Gadreel to stay, deciding that he knew best. Also not suffering from an inferiority complex, in my opinion - as exemplified by him insisting that he did the right thing and not backing down or apologizing in the least.

Killing Death certainly wasn't something Dean would have done if he didn't have some hubris, in my opinion. Probably not killing Zachariah either.

But I'm of the opinion that I like Dean better with some flaws, because it makes him more human. Entirely self-deprecating, inferiority complex Dean - especially when at the same time he is also awesome at everything, but somehow still thinks he's crap - kind of annoys me.

5 minutes ago, Castiels Cat said:

I wrote an article about Dean's tragic fall in season 13 and which Greek Delphic tenet he failed... ie. Which flaw did him in. It was nothing to excess. Dean loves too much.

I actually hope that that isn't it, because that's the textbook definition of a Mary Sue type flaw.

[DeeDee79]

Just now, Castiels Cat said:

The same one that Gonzogirl made more eloquently. Michael probably said to get Dean to say yes and didn't bother with specifics.  Zachariah then went about getting Dean to say yes which involved torture because of Zachariah's temperament and personal attitudes. We do not have evidence that connects Michael to the torture.

And...my post was about how we don't know that Michael was the one instructing Zachariah in response to a discussion of how Michael was malicious. I said that all of the angels were pretty much indifferent to humans. What about that contradicts what you're saying?

[Castiels Cat]

5 minutes ago, DeeDee79 said:

And...my post was about how we don't know that Michael was the one instructing Zachariah in response to a discussion of how Michael was malicious. I said that all of the angels were pretty much indifferent to humans. What about that contradicts what you're saying?

I misunderstood then. Sorry.

[DeeDee79]

1 minute ago, Castiels Cat said:

I misunderstood then. Sorry.

No problem. 🙂

[Castiels Cat]

26 minutes ago, AwesomO4000 said:

I think I didn't explain what I meant very well.

I said "lying" when I should have said misleading. When Michael - or actually mainly the other angels, because Michael wasn't clear - said that there would be "paradise" on earth, it wasn't clear what that meant. The angel's idea of paradise might entirely suck for many humans... and considering what Castiel said about free will at the end of "Swan Song" and the angels' idea of heaven, I'm betting that's a pretty good guess.

So Dean may have been under the impression that Michael would save half or most of humanity, but I don't think that meant to Dean what it was necessarily going to be in the actual case if Michael won. My guess was pretty much not at all.

And Michael didn't really care about that. He cared about following orders and killing Lucifer. So much so that he didn't really have a good reign on the rest of his angels, who were doing pretty much what they wanted. If he killed Lucifer, and what happened isn't what he thought would happen - as say if he thought God would come back and he didn't - things might even have more ended up how they did in the AU.

In other words, I think Michael was going to be sort of like one of those genies who supposedly gives you what you wish for, but it's not exactly what you meant. I don't think Michael's version of saving half humanity and Michael's would've been the same. That's more of what I meant.

Much of the time, yes, but not all of the time.

In season 9, Dean made it clear that he was the one with the mark, so he was the only one who got to have a say in deciding what would be done. That's not an inferiority complex. That's hubris.

Dean also decided for Sam that he wouldn't give Sam the chance to decide for himself whether he wanted Gadreel to stay, deciding that he knew best. Also not suffering from an inferiority complex, in my opinion - as exemplified by him insisting that he did the right thing and not backing down or apologizing in the least.

Killing Death certainly wasn't something Dean would have done if he didn't have some hubris, in my opinion. Probably not killing Zachariah either.

But I'm of the opinion that I like Dean better with some flaws, because it makes him more human. Entirely self-deprecating, inferiority complex Dean - especially when at the same time he is also awesome at everything, but somehow still thinks he's crap - kind of annoys me.

I actually hope that that isn't it, because that's the textbook definition of a Mary Sue type flaw.

Exhibiting something to excess is a classic ancient Greek character flaw. The classic example is Oedipus. He loses his temper over nothing, exhibits what is essentially road rage and kills man on the road. This act is the first part of a prophecy that leads to tragedy.

We have seen Dean's love for his family drive his behavior again and again. It drives him to make sacrifices to save them time and time again. However he became more and more desperate as the seasons wore on and his saves became more dangerous. Nothing to excess. He is out of balance. There has never been a Mary Sue quality to the writing about Dean. Jensen's acting has made the character so iconic... well and the fact that Dean almost always maintains the moral center.

He killed Death to save Sam. He killed Zachariah to save Sam and Adam.He took on the Mark because he thought he had lost Sam's love and wanted to go out doing one good thing... killing Abaddon. I think you must mean s 10... the BotD was an evil black magic grimoire that required human sacrifice. Sam was lying to Dean, to Charlie and to Cas. Sam was making deals work an evil witch and handed over 2 black grimoires to her, one of which the MoL had sworn to keep from witches. Sam nearly got Dean killed, Cas killed and he got Charlie killed. Dean was not exhibited hubris, Sam was. Dean was right and Sam was wrong and s 11 happened and then Sam was wrong again and did not listen to Dean and Lucifer got out of the cage.

If you mean s 9... well Dean was under the influence of a Supernatural force and he did not really know the ground rules because he didn't let Cain explain them because he wanted to SUFFER because he thought he had lost Sam forever. It's so very Dean and not at all hubris. It's a sign of his low self worth and the fact that Sam historically left all the time.

16 minutes ago, DeeDee79 said:

No problem. 🙂

🤪

Edited January 23, 2020 by Castiels Cat

[AwesomO4000]

28 minutes ago, Castiels Cat said:

He killed Death to save Sam. He killed Zachariah to save Sam and Adam.He took on the Mark because he thought he had lost Sam's love and wanted to go out doing one good thing killing Abaddon. I think you must mean s 10...

No, I meant the end of season 9, when Dean told Sam that he was the one with the mark, and the only one who could save everyone from Metatron, so what he said goes, and if Sam didn't like it he could take a hike. After he had lied to Sam for his own good, of course, because only he, Dean, had the power to kill Abbadon, and Sam would've only been a distraction.

Sure it was most likely true, but also smacked of hubris, because Dean didn't bother to explain the Abbadon part until after the fact, choosing to lie instead, and just assumed that was fine to do.

28 minutes ago, Castiels Cat said:

He took on the Mark because he thought he had lost Sam's love and wanted to go out doing one good thing killing Abaddon.

And this is an excuse how? It was a reckless thing to do.. One which had bad consequences, although it should have had more consequences rather than those being shifted over to Sam.

28 minutes ago, Castiels Cat said:

He killed Death to save Sam.

Yeah, and why is this somehow okay to do? Why when Dean does reckless things like this is it okay?

28 minutes ago, Castiels Cat said:

Sam was lying to Dean, to Charlie and to Cas.

Sam didn't lie to Charlie or Castiel that I recall. And he didn't get Charlie killed. She knew what she was getting into and made some bad decisions. Sam tried his best to protect Charlie. Charlie went off on her own - foolhardedly.

Quote

Sam was making deals work an evil witch

And Dean made a deal with a demon,.

So they both made unsavory deals with evil beings / people to save the other.

Edited January 23, 2020 by AwesomO4000

[Aeryn13]

11 minutes ago, AwesomO4000 said:

 

Yeah, and why is this somehow okay to do? Why when Dean does reckless things like this is it okay?

It's not okay, it's just meaningless since it's Dean. The writers would have to care and see him as a main character to even think about creating further plots out of that in the first place.

The character isn't "protected" from consequences, he is more or less ignored. That is IMO a big difference. 

 

[Castiels Cat]

1 hour ago, AwesomO4000 said:

No, I meant the end of season 9, when Dean told Sam that he was the one with the mark, and the only one who could save everyone from Metatron, so what he said goes, and if Sam didn't like it he could take a hike. After he had lied to Sam for his own good, of course, because only he, Dean, had the power to kill Abbadon, and Sam would've only been a distraction.

Sure it was most likely true, but also smacked of hubris, because Dean didn't bother to explain the Abbadon part until after the fact, choosing to lie instead, and just assumed that was fine to do.

And this is an excuse how? It was a reckless thing to do.. One which had bad consequences, although it should have had more consequences rather than those being shifted over to Sam.

Yeah, and why is this somehow okay to do? Why when Dean does reckless things like this is it okay?

Sam didn't lie to Charlie or Castiel that I recall. And he didn't get Charlie killed. She knew what she was getting into and made some bad decisions. Sam tried his best to protect Charlie. Charlie went off on her own - foolharedly.

Not hubris. Sam getting himself killed was a dumb idea. Throwing paint at a wall doesn't always work. In the cases I cited Sam always made a statement that indicated hubris.

Sam did lie. Dean was not losing it. There was no evidence that he was only Sam's words. Sam tells Charlie that HE has to be the one to save him and we know from the beginning of the season that Sam is afraid of Dean dying and becoming a demon again. Everyone believes Sam however he was manipulating them. This is why in The Prisoner they mirror the sequence with papa Styne attempting to murder Dean with Sam attempting to murder Crowley. It is to show us that Sam is not behaving like the good guy. S 10 is about Sam going dark. He behaves more like a demon than Dean and he behaves worse than Dean with the Mark and he uses the BotD and Oskar is sacrificed and lots of people die even though Sam thought he knew best and insi8thay he had to be The one. That is hubris.

And then in s 11 Sam is so horrified by what he has done and says he has to change and make better choices and Lucifer actually shows him past mistakes and Sully shows him past mistakes and he actually apologizes to Dean!!! LORD HAVE MERCY! Now that is a redemption arc in a 11 after going dark in a 10.

Oh. And I forgot the most important point about Dean going to kill Metatron. He was barely human at that point. My favorite part of the end of s 9 was Crowley. Crowley was the witness to Dean's disappearing humanity, the only one that suspected and the only one that saw it as a miracle. He takes Dean to a bar and comments on the fact that Dean is not earing and drinking his usual. It's then that he knew... he really knew. Dean was being taken over by the Mark and human Dean was going to be gone. Crowley was there to witness his Swan Song. It was poetic.

Of course Dean was protecting Sam. That much was still there. But it was also Dean's battle to fight. Metatron had more or less called him out mano a manor and  Dean was the only one that stood a chance of taking Metatron down.  It was the Dean sacrifice maneuver which he has done before only this time with the Mark he was pitching for the fight 

 

1 hour ago, Aeryn13 said:

It's not okay, it's just meaningless since it's Dean. The writers would have to care and see him as a main character to even think about creating further plots out of that in the first place.

The character isn't "protected" from consequences, he is more or less ignored. That is IMO a big difference. 

 

There's different character motivation. The brothers are different characters. Kripke established the originating tropes. Dean happens to be selfless with low self esteem. Sam has hubris. It's how Ruby corrupted him. 

Edited January 24, 2020 by Castiels Cat

[Myrelle]

10 minutes ago, Aeryn13 said:

It's not okay, it's just meaningless since it's Dean. The writers would have to care and see him as a main character to even think about creating further plots out of that in the first place.

The character isn't "protected" from consequences, he is more or less ignored. That is IMO a big difference. 

 

A HUGE! difference, IMO, too.

[ahrtee]

4 hours ago, AwesomO4000 said:

*** (Which I personally find off-putting in a powerful being. If you have a mission, own it, and do your own damn dirty work to get it done, don't pass the buck. But that's just my opinion.)

How many powerful beings (or even people) do you know who do their own dirty work?  Or even just plain grunt work?  Just curious.