Genma the villain of Ranma 1/2?

[Konsaki]

Villain:
1.a cruelly malicious person who is involved in or devoted to wickedness or crime; scoundrel. (Not directly towards Ranma.)
2.a character in a play, novel, or the like, who constitutes an important evil agency in the plot. (Not an Evil Agency, but definitely a cause of trouble)

Malice (base of Malicious)
1. desire to inflict injury, harm, or suffering on another, either because of a hostile impulse or out of deep-seated meanness: the malice and spite of a lifelong enemy. (Genma actively helps his son as much as harms or ignores, but none show a distinct desire of malice)

Hanlon's razor
- Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.

[khammel]

Villain:
1.a cruelly malicious person who is involved in or devoted to wickedness or crime; scoundrel. (Not directly towards Ranma.)
2.a character in a play, novel, or the like, who constitutes an important evil agency in the plot. (Not an Evil Agency, but definitely a cause of trouble)

Malice (base of Malicious)
1. desire to inflict injury, harm, or suffering on another, either because of a hostile impulse or out of deep-seated meanness: the malice and spite of a lifelong enemy. (Genma actively helps his son as much as harms or ignores, but none show a distinct desire of malice)

Hanlon's razor
- Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.

I'll use Occam's Razor here and give you the win by double razor elimination. Congratulations.

[Konsaki]

I'll use Occam's Razor here and give you the win by double razor elimination. Congratulations.

Potato.

[Noy Telinú]

What you're saying is true, from a certain point of view...

Come on other 5 people who thinks Genma is at least slightly a villain, help me here! >_<

[Crescent Pulsar S]

No, it's more an objective way of reasoning than a subjective point of view. You can try to argue an opinion to validate it, whether you recognize it as an opinion or not, but if you're working backward to justify what you believe then you're more than likely going to employ fallacious logic to argue the cause and effect. You've done that.

Allow me to put it this way: the word "villain" is a rather subjective term. Your villain could very well be another's hero. It's not that the nature was inherent in their actions, but was decided by others and imposed. If you're a person who dislikes Genma, then -- in all likelihood -- you're more likely to call him a villain. That he doesn't do much of anything explicitly good tends to be why he's seen in that kind of light (not necessarily as a villain, but as a bad (or even worse) person in general), but lack of evidence in one way/area is not necessarily evidence for another.

True, Genma's done a lot of things that people would typically call bad/wrong, but that's why the words we use have definitions. The word in question, "villain," could be more accurately used to describe a character like Happosai, not Genma. Unlike Genma, he's clearly unwelcome in the house (and a lot of other places, I'm sure). Why would Genma be tolerated if he were a villain as proposed? Also, where Genma has done some things perceived as bad/wrong for the sake of Ranma's training, Happosai has done at least some bad/wrong things in regard to Genma's and Soun's training (assuming that it wasn't a pretext to begin with) for the sake of doing other bad/wrong things (to the point of having a mob of people up in arms to chase them away). Another thing to consider is that Genma could have lived a life of crime, just like his master. He'd developed techniques especially for someone who wanted to make their livelihood as a thief. Not only did he not go that route, he recognized how serious a matter it was to use them for such a purpose and honored his decision to never use them until such circumstances that he felt he could give his son a hint and no more.

In the end, Ranma 1/2 wouldn't be Ranma 1/2 without Genma being Genma, because then we wouldn't have the flawed but fairly admirable character that we all know of in Ranma. We may not have even had a cursed Ranma. If you like Ranma as a character, the guy who bravely faces life or death challenges (whether for his sake or another's), and shakes off hardships instead of letting them get to him, then you'd mostly have Genma to thank for that. That isn't to argue that he isn't a villain, but it's obvious that he isn't so horrible that he could break Ranma, nor does he seem the type to be intelligent enough to prolong someone's suffering (had that been the goal) for so long without breaking the subject.

I think Genma's encounter with Ukyo's father is a good example of what kind of man he is. At first he turned down the proposal to arrange a marriage between his son and Ukyo, but did a one-eighty as soon as he learned what would have been a part of the arrangement. A villain typically doesn't try to do the right thing first before being led astray. And you can at least sympathize with or understand him on matters where gluttony and greed overrule his judgement, considering he had a master who would chain him out of reach of food while it was made and eaten, the same master who was likely the sole person who enjoyed what was stolen while denying him material possessions and things of value. For someone who had been under the care of a person who might be considered an actual villain, he could have turned out worse, which -- in turn -- would have been reflected in Ranma. Considering how Ranma did turn out, I -- personally -- can't call him a villain.

Well, even if someone were to insist that Genma's still a villain, I hardly think there's any grounds to call him the worst or main one. To me, at least, Happosai makes a far worse (as in better) villain than Genma. What had Genma ever done that could come near to equating the use of the ultimate weakness moxibustion, much less for the reason it had been used? I'm calling it: nothing. Heck, Happosai is practically a natural enemy to all women. If being an enemy to at least hundreds of millions of people (if not more) isn't enough of a qualification to be the biggest villain in the series, then I don't know what is. Sure, the vast majority of those women don't even know he exists, but that doesn't change the extreme likelihood that he would be their enemy upon getting "acquainted" with him. Even without going that far, Happosai should still have many more enemies than Genma. Happosai's chased by groups of women often enough, whereas Genma attracted the wrath of a single person. (Which would be Ukyo. I could have forgotten others, possibly from the anime, but I can't think of any more from the manga.) I suppose you could count his son, but their relationship is not the same as his is with others (being father and son and all), and so I'm reluctant to include him due to my own perspective on that matter.

[Ellen Kuhfeld]

I'm not sure Genma is the villain, but I'm quite willing to write him that way. He pushes too many of my buttons.

[Spica75]

Interesting discussion. But, who loosed an unfettered Genma UPON Ranma?

Nodoka.

And, yes. I DID use 'potato' as a stand-in for Nodoka.

Bad logic, because Genma was the one to convince Nodoka what a great idea it was. AFAIK at least.

Hanlon's razor
- Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.

Yeah, that probably sums it up pretty well for this case.

I'm not sure Genma is the villain, but I'm quite willing to write him that way. He pushes too many of my buttons.

Definitely.

[Konsaki]

Bad logic, because Genma was the one to convince Nodoka what a great idea it was. AFAIK at least.

Correct. She was beating him over the head with verious objects while pleading that Genma not take Ranma away from her; the scene played for comidy with her upping from a washbin to the table. The entire reason for the seppuku contract was Genma offering it up as a way to get her to let him take Ranma.
If I remember correctly, this is Nodoka telling the story with Ran(ko), Mr Panda and the Tendos at the family table.

[Noy Telinú]

http://villains.wikia.com/wiki/Genma_Saotome

At least a wiki agrees with me.

Then again, it also says that Nabiki, Kodachi, Cologne, Shampoo, Happosai, Mousse, Taro, Ryoga, Princapal Kuno and Taki Kuno Are villains too...

[Konsaki]

I see no instance of Genma being labled a villain in a less biased wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Ra ... ma_Saotome
We are now back to a net zero.

[Noy Telinú]

This is the part that got me.

In a way, his terrible "training"(abuse) towards his son, along with his flawed teachings that ultimately shaped Ranma's personality, could arguably make Genma the true antagonist of the series

And while it is opinion, yes, so is practically everything we guess.

Until Rumiko says something (which is highly unlikely) then we could only guess on what she meant. Just like the reason for an author having blue curtains for a character. It could be due to symbolizing the character and depression, or because they were blue because they were freaking blue!

But yeah, it's all guesses and opinion. My view is very "Genma is the villain" ish and it won't really change easily.

But judging by the poll, others agree more than disagree... Or think potato.

Oh and I counter with fridge horror of TV tropes (not by me)
[url]
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/F ... nmaOneHalf[/url]

[Konsaki]

Oh and I counter with fridge horror of TV tropes (not by me)
[url]
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/F ... nmaOneHalf[/url]

And I counter with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potato and we're still on even playing field.

Hell, I'm going to say your link set you backwards because of:

In Ranma 1/2 Genma comes across as a horrendous, uncaring, selfish father and a useless sensei getting Ranma all those fiancées and complicated messes with his honor. Then I realized, Genma says everything is training. He isn't being an idiot, he's being machiavellian setting up challenges for Ranma to think himself out of and use his skills to outwit his enemies. Even the fiancées and honor messes are training just to get Ranma to think critically about honor and give him the skills to debate his way out of that Seppuku contract. Every time Ranma reaches equilibrium, or begins to plateau in his abilities Genma "messes up" and throws in a new challenge. Even Jusenkyo has improved Ranma's physical, emotional, social and critical thinking skills in the long run. No wonder he laughs it up playing shogi all day, he is the best martial arts instructor after all.

[Noy Telinú]

The Cradle From Hell arc is just a mounting array of these. So, Ranma proves he has progressed to the point Genma can't beat him up anymore. Genma is horrified by this and decides to invent a new "super move"... which is designed to basically horrify Ranma into submission. Not only that, Genma's idea for the one thing guaranteed to frighten Ranma into submitting? Hugging his son. And it works like a charm. And it's quite explicit that it's not the embarrassment of being hugged by his father that makes Ranma stop, the move genuinely scares him. Think on what that says about Ranma & Genma's relationship.

My counter counter counter.

[Crescent Pulsar S]

...Which is still arguing outside of context. It's also an illogical cause and effect argument: Ranma doesn't want to be hugged by his father, thus Ranma must have been abused. This is ignoring the fact -- nay, stating falsely -- that Ranma wasn't scared in the first place. There's a difference between disgust and fear, and enough disgust can lead to a fear of being exposed to said disgusting thing, which -- I suppose -- can be confusing. In the story in question, Ranma was unsettled enough to want to avoid the "cradle of hell" technique, but even after the first exposure he kept fighting against it, because he was only creeped out. In fact, it takes who knows how many experiences with the technique before Ranma is actually reluctant to experience it anymore.

Anyway, I wouldn't trust this source simply because it lists lying as one of Genma's powers/skills. Just being able to lie is apparently something special, seeing as his lies are so often lame and ineffective. Oh, and because they described him as being fat. (Compared to someone like Gandhi, yeah, sure.) And don't even get me started on the "hobbies."

Or the fact that they're using the same flawed logic that others have used by calling Genma's training abuse, which is hardly within the proper context. (And that's before addressing the physics used in fiction, much less that it is fiction.) Ranma neither looks nor acts abused, and it's Ranma's condition and thoughts that matter here. (No, "he's just hiding it," isn't going to fly, as he's never shown hiding the effects of long-term abuse behind a facade.) If the intent of training is to improve someone in/as something, then Genma succeeded very well. Not only is Ranma one of the best martial artists, but he's also very resilient and tolerant toward abuse. Which ultimately makes it pointless to accuse Genma of doing something bad, seeing as it built Ranma up rather than tore him down. (As if being as confident and non-defeatist as he is wasn't enough of a clue.)

Until Rumiko says something (which is highly unlikely) then we could only guess on what she meant.

The thing is: she doesn't need to. She's already told us who the villains were in the way that authors often do, without needing to tear down the fourth wall to bash our heads in with it. Some antagonists stick around while others come and go. No guessing is necessary for anyone except for those practicing wishful thinking. The fact is that there is no, "the villain," in the series -- just villains. Usually the villain of a series is saved for last, which would be Saffron in this case.

No, wait, hold the phone. I don't know why this didn't occur to me until now, but you know what? Kodachi, Ukyo, Shampoo, Cologne, Tatewaki, Ryoga and Gosunkugi are the villains: because the series ultimately revolves around the relationship of Ranma and Akane, and those characters are the ones who have something to lose (their love interest) if they end up together. (Works for me, at least.)

Anyway, I've got nothing to gain from treading over well-trodden ground again after this, so this is it from me. I still need to learn how to manage my time and priorities better. <_<;

[ijp92]

I voted strongly disagree. I'm just tired of seeing Genma made out worse than his is in fanon. Wherein Ranma was literally starved everyday and sold at the drop of a hat (with no one mentioning how its just as wrong to buy a person) and the author retroactively removing Ranma from any wrong doing he had done in the past.

And as for who would be the real one true villain in Ranma 1/2? I think it is obvious and am upset that no one has mentioned it.

Nabiki.

I mean seriously. Canonically she has no redeeming qualities.
Just read her profile on the wiki.
http://ranma.wikia.com/wiki/Nabiki_Tendo#Profile