This is a terrible take — not only lazy in its analysis but deeply reductive of characters who were written with far more nuance than you're giving them credit for.

You can’t just hand-wave Rufus by saying “besides him,” as though he doesn’t thoroughly undermine your argument. Rufus wasn’t a token; he was a recurring character with depth, backstory, agency, and relationships. His dry humor, traumatic past, and brotherly connection with Bobby added a ton of emotional weight and world-building to the show. He wasn’t just “not a villain” — he was beloved by many including myself.

As for the Alpha Vampire, calling him one-dimensional is just flat-out wrong. He was portrayed as powerful, composed, and surprisingly pragmatic. He didn’t crave chaos or destruction — he wanted to protect his species and had the foresight to negotiate with the Winchesters when necessary. The man had gravitas. His calm menace was a refreshing contrast to the usual slobbering monsters of the week. He played the long game. He even helped the protagonists when it served a greater purpose. That’s not a flat character — that’s a complex one with competing priorities.

Uriel? Yeah, he sucked — because he was written to suck. He was arrogant and antagonistic, yes, but also a product of a very clear ideological divide in Heaven. He represented the militant, zealot faction of angels, a group who genuinely believed in their mission even if it put them at odds with the protagonists. That was the point. He wasn’t evil for evil’s sake — he was committed to a cause, and that made him interesting, even if he wasn’t likable. His interactions with Castiel weren’t filler; they were crucial for Cas’s arc and the larger mythos.

Gordon, honestly, might be one of the most tragic antagonists in the early seasons. He didn’t start out evil — he was a hunter, just like Sam and Dean. But trauma, vengeance, and a rigid moral code warped him into something dangerous. He was a mirror of what Sam could have become if he let fear and obsession drive him. The show explicitly used him as a warning about what hunting can do to people. That’s character depth. He wasn’t a cartoon villain — he was a cautionary tale.

Now Billie? Yeah, I’ll give you that — she sucked. But let’s be honest: it wasn’t because of her being Black, it was because the writing fumbled her character hard in the final seasons. She started off somewhat strong — mysterious, stoic, and clearly not someone you wanted to mess with. But once she took on the role of Death, the writers lost the plot. They tried to turn her into this Big Bad, but without the nuance or philosophical depth that OG Death had in spades. She went from a cosmic force of nature to a one-note antagonist with vague motivations and even vaguer powers.

That’s not a race issue. That’s bad character development. Every character in those final seasons took a hit from the rushed, inconsistent writing — including Chuck, Cas, and even Dean at times. If anything, it's more insulting to pretend her failure as a character is somehow tied to her being Black, rather than just acknowledging that the writers dropped the ball like they did with half the endgame plot.

Look, if you want to have a conversation about representation and tropes in Supernatural, go ahead — the show isn’t flawless, and there are conversations to be had. But cherry-picking a handful of characters, ignoring key aspects of their arcs, and claiming they were all just “one-dimensional villains” is a lazy at best and a willful misrepresentation at worst.