Which of the Fellowship would have gone ring mad?

[The Only Real Estel]

The Hobbits aren't simple

The hobbits were all used to living very simple lives, & were themselves somewhat simple. Not talking fools or anything like that, but I'd have to say that the hobbits were deffinitly simple.

So I think this gold-greed would infact be a reason for Gimli to not be one to succumb.

Well, like I said in my last post, I doubt many more (if any more) would've been taken by the Ring after Boromir being taken out-but-I still have to disagree with what you said about Gimli in the quote above. I think you're right that Gimli would've resisted the Ring's power quite long, but I think he'd have resisted the Ring's promise of power, not necessarily the Ring itself. 'So I think this gold-greed would infact be a reason for Gimli to not be one to succumb' But if he caught this 'gold-greed', would that not then make him lust after the Ring? The Ring was of gold (obviously), and it apparently didn't look to shabby either. I think the Ring would've gotten Gimli on it's treasure aspect more than it's power aspect.
If it got him at all :P.

[Son of Númenor]

Eventually, each & every member of the Fellowship would in all likelihood have succumbed to the power of the Ring & the temptation to seize it. Some interesting thoughts have been put forth throughout this thread about what order it would have gone in.

...Hobbits [seem to have] a particular resistance to the Ring’s seductive power.(The Saucepan Man)

I tend to agree. Sam, in particular, was exemplary of this. Since the question of who would have gone "Ring mad" essentially revolves around who would have been the first to try to forcefully wrest the Ring from Frodo, I am inclined to believe that Sam, Pippin & Merry would be the last possible culprits. Not only are hobbits almost completely unaggressive by nature, but the three aforementioned are also the mose intimate friends of Frodo's, and thus would be least likely to betray him. Many have said Aragorn would be the last to hold out against the Ring, but I disagree. Not only did he face the most internal conflict (which could potentially lead to a breakdown) and face the burden of saving Gondor, he also, as Saucepan Man pointed out, was descended from Isildur - what makes us think that Aragorn is any more powerful against the will of the Ring than his forefather?

Between Aragorn & the hobbitses I believe would come Gimli first, before Legolas. My logic in this is that Dwarves are (& I don't mean to engage in stereotyping) generally more passionate creatures than Elves. Well, maybe 'passionate' isn't the word. Haughty? Cavalier? Uppity? Proud? Touchy? (Okay, I used Thesaurus.com... so sue me.) What I am trying to say is that Gimli seems more predisposed to wrath & anger, more capable of being offended, & it seems to me that traits like this would more likely lead to Ringlust than Legolas's calm, subdued manner.

I see what Saucepan Man is saying when he asserts that there is no real reason for us to believe that Legolas (an Elf) would be less tempted by the Ring than Gimli (a Dwarf), because after all Galadriel, one of the most powerful Elves, was tempted; but I think that Legolas's age, if nothing else, would set him apart as less likely to attempt to steal the Ring - there is a certain wisdom that inherently comes with being alive a few thousand years.

Sorry I can't add more. I hope what I just wrote makes some sense. My final timeline of Ring-induced insanity goes something like this

Aragorn-Gimli-Legolas-Merry/Pippin-Sam

Oh, & I forgot about what's his face, that wizard...

Oh yeah, Gandalf!

He would come last, because he is one smart, out-of-this-world dude.

[The Only Real Estel]

Eventually, each & every member of the Fellowship would in all likelihood have succumbed to the power of the Ring & the temptation to seize it.

But are we makeing this assumption based on the book, or the movie? For that matter, is thread revolving around the book, or the movie? If your comment (above) was directed towards the books, I don't remember reading anything of the kind, although I could be mistaken. If it was directed towards the movie, I still hold that Galadriel's lines were bad choices, & that if Sam could prove her wrong, surely most or all of the others could to. Now if it was a Fellowhips of Frodo & Eight other Men , well, than that'd be quite a bit different.

As to Aragorn perhaps having no more control over himself around the Ring then Isildur did, I think Aragorn traveling with Frodo as long as he did proves that he had more self-control than Isildur, who likely would've done a Boromir, probably even sooner, had he been in Aragorn's place. Although I don't doubt that if Aragorn would've gone with Frodo into Mordor & up to Mount Doom, there'd have been a good possibility of him giving into the Ring.

[Olorin_TLA]

Well, about Gimli, if he just thought of it as a treasure, it wouldn't do much becasue it's just a small ring. Alhough that said it is flawless in design. But the very-enhanced-greed only took hold on the Dwarves already bearing a Ring of Power. Like I said, I think he would have been one of the last. But I may be wrong.

I also think personalities matter heabilly in this. There are some, like Legolas (and loyal Gimli) who I just can't see doing this...they're too noble simply. Even Galadriel didn't make a move for it until it was freely offered to her, though it was within her grasp for a month. Although taking the RIng wouldn't have to be done like Boromir. If Gandalf or Aragorn did it, they'd do it, as I've said, for the defense against Sauron, and so I think first they'd try to convinnce Frodo, but then if that failed take it off him, but not in a violent fit of rage like Boromir. They'd probably treat him as a poor victim, delusional from the Ring's power, convincing themselves they were right. Bearing this in mind, the others, no matter how noble loyal, might lie to themselves that 'relieving Frodo of his burden' would be in reality helping him.

[The Saucepan Man]

For that matter, is thread revolving around the book, or the movie?

Any discussion of this nature which concerns the films should be in the Movies Forum. My understanding, however, is that this discussion concerns the book, and I have certainly made my comments on that basis.

I agree with Son of Númenor that, given a long enough exposure, every member of the Fellowship would have succumbed to its power. This may not be expressly stated in the book, but I think that it is implicit in the nature of the Ring, which was created to assist Sauron in his purpose of enslaving all within Middle-earth to his will. The only possible exception would be Gandalf, but given the consequences if he did succumb to it, I wouldn't fancy taking that risk.

I probably sound like a scratchy record as I keep saying this on the forum, but Tolkien made it clear in his Letters that no one could voluntarily have destroyed the Ring. This is consistent with the story, since it would belittle Frodo's efforts, in my view, if someone else could have succeeded where he "failed". And Frodo's inability to destroy the Ring was not because he suddenly decided that it was rather pretty and should not be harmed after all. It was because the will of the Ring itself prevented him doing so. It follows that, if Frodo finally succumbed to the will of the Ring, then (Bombadil excepted) there is not one who would not also have succumbed to it eventually.

Now if it was a Fellowhips of Frodo & Eight other Men , well, than that'd be quite a bit different.

While I think that its fair to say that Men's will to resist the Ring is weaker than that of other Races (they were, after all, the only ones ensnared by the Rings of Power), it does not follow that the other Races were not vulnerable to it. The Dwarven Kings might not have been enslaved by the Seven Rings, but they were certainly affected by them. And the Elves must have recognised their vulnerability, since they removed the Three and kept them concealed when they perceived Sauron's plan. There is, I think, a tendency sometimes to think of Elves as all but flawless and therefore dismiss Legolas as a contender for submission to the Ring. But lets not forget that there were some pretty flawed Elves in the First Age. Eöl and Maeglin, for example. And then there were all those Elves whose pride and possessiveness led them to run around chasing the Silmarils for thousands of years. And I'm not just talking about Feanor and his sons. Thingol too lusted after it, and Legolas was a descendant of his people.

For all these reasons, and because they were much closer to Frodo and therefore less likely to be tempted into attacking him, I think that the Hobbits would have been more able to hold out than either Legolas or Gimili. It's a tough call between those two, but I put Legolas first because Dwarves are said to be able to resist at least one aspect of the Ring's power, namely its "enwraithing" effect.

And finally, let's not be too down on Isildur. If you accept that no one could willingly have destroyed the Ring, then Isildur can hardly be blamed for refusing to do so. Also, he did come to think better of his decision to keep it as a weregild for his father. When he died, he was on his way to Rivendell to seek the counsel of the wise on what should be done with it. So I do not think that he necessarily had any less self control than Aragorn. But, being Men, I still think that they were both more susceptible to it than members of the other Races.

Edit: To respond to a point made by Olorin:

If Gandalf or Aragorn did it, they'd do it, as I've said, for the defense against Sauron, and so I think first they'd try to convinnce Frodo

By the time that anyone else in the Fellowship succumbed to it, I don't think that Frodo would have been able voluntarily to give it up. So it would either have to be stolen (unlikely to succeed) or taken by force.

[Olorin_TLA]

Yes, nobody would have been able to destory it, and Frodo's corruption is a sure sign anyone else (with some incredible excetions, such as Bombadil) would hav ebeen corrupted if they bore it, but what about if the Fellowship had simply gone with Frodo (or the other way around)? Though still exposure, it's nowhere near as intense as the ordeal Frodo had to go through, and though I think that some might have fallen, I don't think everybody would have.



Edit:

By the time that anyone else in the Fellowship succumbed to it, I don't think that Frodo would have been able voluntarily to give it up. So it would either have to be stolen (unlikely to succeed) or taken by force.

Oh, I didn't think he would. But whereas Boromir went into a mad attack, I think Aragorn and Gandalf would have been a lot more cold and calculating. They would have taken it by force, but used their reputations to act as if they were doing what was rihgt and that Frodo was driven insane by the Ring. Kind of like a twisted psychiatrist might persuade people that someone sane is insane.

[ElberethVarda]

Hroom, this is a very interesting question...

I think that it very likely would have beem Frodo. After all, he was carrying the Ring, and had the most contact with it. It was his burden, appointed to him. And we all see, that by the end of the book, at the Cracks of Doom, he succumbs. So, in a sense, he really is the next after Boromir to give in.

[The Only Real Estel]

I agree with Son of Númenor that, given a long enough exposure, every member of the Fellowship would have succumbed to its power.

Given the right amount of time, they probably would. Another question: Are we saying which of the Fellowship would've gone Ring mad had they all gone with Frodo into Mordor? Or are we asking who would've gone Ring mad first given the proper amount of time (basically saying that if there was no limit on time, what order would they go in)? There's a pretty big difference, but unfortunatly, I only realized the possibility that we were talking about the 2nd scenario about 10 minutes ago .

And finally, let's not be too down on Isildur. If you accept that no one could willingly have destroyed the Ring, then Isildur can hardly be blamed for refusing to do so.

And I suppose it might as well follow that nearly no one could pass up the Ring if it fell in front of their face, but Faramir might've, and Isildur could have.
Btw, the way it is portrayed in the movies, it seemed that Elrond would've been able to destroy it; although I suppose that's the movie not wanting to admit that no one could voluntarily throw it away, that would lessen the dramatical element of it, I suppose :/.

[Isowen]

I think Pippin would have been next after Boromir, the Merry, then Gimli, Legolas, Aragorn and (if you include Gandalf in there as Boromir tried to take the ring after Moria) Gandalf would resist the longest as he is both wise and strong. Though, he did warn Frodo back a Bag end not to tempt him with the ring, so perhaps I am wrong.
Many would not try to take the ring from Frodo, but if he offered it freely to some, they might be tempted all too easily.