Ring of fire, Ring of Air, Ring of ?

[The Might]

I'm personally against the reasoning shown above by Gordis, when speaking of the Seven as Rings of Earth and the Nine as Rings of Aether.

It was only a coincidence that Dwarves were naturally inclined to love gold and gems that the Rings increased this lust.

As for the Nine, they worked very much like the Seven, only difference is Men wanted rather power then treasures.

So in the end you could rather say the Nine = the Seven, there was not any big difference between them really, only the consequence was due to the different bearers. So attributing them to different elements makes little sense.

As for the Three, that is a different story, as after all they were not touched by Sauron. Here you really can see a certain connection to the elements, especially in the case of Gandalf, of whom it is said that his innate power of controlling flames and fire was enhanced by the ring.

Why is there no ring of earth?
Well, I believe because the Rings were not intended to symbolise the elements in the first place.
Usually, the classical elements are thought of as being equal, but in Tolkien's works this equality is clearly broken by Vilya being stronger than the other two.

My conclusion?
It was never intended to have a Ring of Earth and the other three elements were chosen so as to fit with their bearers.

[Gordis]

Originally Posted by The Might

My conclusion?
It was never intended to have a Ring of Earth and the other three elements were chosen so as to fit with their bearers.

You may be right and I can't prove that the Seven and the Nine were necessarily also connected with the elements, as were the Three. Yet, it would somehow make the whole scheme less perfect, wouldn't it?

Your last statement, however makes me wonder who the original owners of the Three were supposed to be? Certainly not Gandalf - at the time even himself had no idea he would come to ME one day. Certainly not Elrond - he wasn't that important a figure yet. Then who?

I think Celebrimbor made one ring for himself and likely it was the strongest ring, Vilya.
Galadriel, who was present for most of the time in Ost-in Edhil and was Celebrimbor's secret love, most likely was supposed to get Nenya from the start. I guess Celebrimbor tailor-made it for her, using not gold, sullied by Morgoth, but pure Mithril.
Then who was to have Narya? Interesting question, isn't it? Was it Celeborn? Or perhaps the King Gil-Galad? Or maybe Celebrimbor kept Narya for his buddy Annatar, one of fiery nature, former maia of Aule? We are not told that Celebrimbor and Annatar parted as enemies back in 1500... And as disinterested as Annatar may have seemed, it would have been unfair if he himself wouldn't get a single ring out of the common project.

Originally Posted by Morthoron

Gandalf is referring to the Rings in general, and seemingly more regarding the One, and not specifically to the Nine. Gandalf does not indicate that any of those who became Nazgul had any good intentions whatsoever.

I have to disagree. Gandalf speaks of the great Rings in general, but what mortal but the nazgul had become "in the end invisible permanently", had become a wraith? Not a single one, only the Nine. Any information Gandalf relates could only refer to the fate of the nazgul, otherwise it would be idle speculation. Yet it is not- Gandalf speaks with full knowledge.

Actually this passage by Gandalf reads like a lament for someone he knew well; one even gets an impression that Gandalf speaks as first-hand witness. And as written, it was exactly the case. This is a very old element of the story, as can be gleaned from the drafts published in HOME 6. Originally, all the wizards were Men, not Maiar, and the Wizard-King (Witch-King in the published story) was "the most powerful of the wizards of Men", Gandalf's boss. Most likely, Gandalf referred to him in this passage, having been witness to his fall to the Ring.

Now, in the published story, Gandalf, of course, is a Maia who came to ME about three thousand years after the nazgul had become wraiths. Yet the passage remains as it was written.

Originally Posted by Morthoron

(I believe it says somewhere that the WiKi was a sorceror of note prior to wearing a Ring),

Nay, not prior to the Ring. The quote you seemingly have in mind is Gandalf's words in LOTR:

‘Yet now under the Lord of Barad-dûr the most fell of all his captains is already master of your outer walls,’ said Gandalf. ‘King of Angmar long ago, Sorcerer, Ringwraith, Lord of the Nazgûl, a spear of terror in the hand of Sauron, shadow of despair.’

It refers to Angmar's period, when the WK had been a wraith for about 3000 years already.

Originally Posted by Morthoron

In my reading, it seems plain that Sauron chose the Nine ringbearers shrewdly as Men having the exact temperment and greed to eventually become his Ulairian thralls
Hmmm...the Rings heighten a man's abilites, virtues and vices -- what men are predisposed to, so the Ring works on; therefore, it seems plain that the Nine Ringbearers, already great and evilly disposed men of their lands (I believe it says somewhere that the WiKi was a sorceror of note prior to wearing a Ring), used the Rings to heighten their own aspirations. You seem to be forgiving the Men all their trespasses and imputing to the Ring all eventual evil; on the contrary, the Ringwraiths were chosen precisely for the evil that already was in their hearts.

Nay, the rings not only heighten someone's abilities. If it were only this, why would Gandalf and Galadriel fear to wield the Ring? The problem is that the Rings corrupt. The One corrupts because it contains a goodly portion of Sauron's power and will, it is part of Sauron himself. The Nine corrupt because through them the very same Sauron (who has the Ruling Ring) gets access to the very mind of the possessor of one of the Nine: corrupts and twists it. Good intentions may remain at first, but they would be carried through by evil means, then the very intentions would turn evil.
Tolkien explains in L#246:

Gandalf as Ring-Lord would have been far worse than Sauron. He would have remained 'righteous', but self-righteous. He would have continued to rule and order things for 'good', and the benefit of his subjects according to his wisdom (which was and would have remained great).
[The draft ends here. In the margin Tolkien wrote: 'Thus while Sauron multiplied [illegible word] evil, he left "good" clearly distinguishable from it. Gandalf would have made good detestable and seem evil.']

The Rings were weapons of psychological warfare, able to corrupt virtually anyone. They were used by Sauron to make the greatest Men of their time his servants - people who would have never served him otherwise. They were not meant as rewards to faithful servants, evil by their own choice, they were too precious for that - after all, Sauron had only nine, he had to choose with care.

When choosing a Ringwraith Sauron had to consider two things:
1.The importance of the country the nazgul represented, which would get an immortal leader and would most likely be also enthralled to Sauron for all eternity.
2.The value of the man himself. Here he could go for an outstanding man even if he wasn't bringing his country along with him - an able sorcerer or an outstanding warrior, who merited to be given one of the nine Rings and become an immortal servant of the Dark Lord.

Evil or good intentions of the future nazgul are immaterial in all this - whoever they were at the start they would turn evil anyway. And the best servants would be Men of integrity, originally noble and good. Like Isildur. Or Aragorn. Or Boromir.

By the way, Morthoron, I have read your "Tales of a Dark Continent". Great story, great settings - I loved it.
But you know, your Cui-Baili had all the makings of a nazgul, if Sauron only managed to thrust a Ring on him. He was a great man, ruler of a great country, he had enough problems to wish for some additional power. Strange that Sauron let pass such a golden opportunity. Khamul, by contrast, as you depict him, was not much of a prize - why waste a ring on such a scoundrel? Such like are ten a penny in every generation.

[Alfirin]

on the selection of Nazgul to be:
Wasn't there something about Sauron giving power's without rings to two Black Numernoreans who went on to become great cheiftans amoung the Haradrim? I seem to recall, whne reading this passage that it sounded like Sauron would have liked to number them amoung his Nazgul but had run out of rings by then.

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by Gordis

Actually this passage by Gandalf reads like a lament for someone he knew well; one even gets an impression that Gandalf speaks as first-hand witness. And as written, it was exactly the case. This is a very old element of the story, as can be gleaned from the drafts published in HOME 6. Originally, all the wizards were Men, not Maiar, and the Wizard-King (Witch-King in the published story) was "the most powerful of the wizards of Men", Gandalf's boss. Most likely, Gandalf referred to him in this passage, having been witness to his fall to the Ring.

Interesting concept, but I still disagree with you. Here is a footnote from Letter#156:

There were evil Numenoreans: Sauronians, but they do not come into this story, except remotely; as the wicked Kings who had become Nazgul or Ringwraiths.

And another regarding the amplification of personal attributes in Letter#131:

The chief power (of all the rings alike) was the prevention or slowing of decay...the preservation of what is desired or loved, or its semblance -- this is more or less and Elvish motive. But also they enhanced the natural power of a possessor -- this approaching 'magic', a motive easily corruptible into evil, a lust for domination [my emphasis].

These quotes, taken in conjunction with previous quotes I offered from 'Of the Rings of Power and the Third Age' lead me to the conclusion that Sauron chose those Men who were more apt to be led into temptation (i.e., those displaying the attributes of greed and a lust for power). These would not be Men of the mold of a Faramir or Aragorn, noble and good and not prone to corruption, rather Men already exhibiting evil tendencies: vicious warriors, sorcerors (the word 'sorcery' nearly always connotes evil in Tolkienic jargon), and avaricious kings (the Sauronic Numenoreans referred to above).

Originally Posted by Gordis

Nay, the rings not only heighten someone's abilities. If it were only this, why would Gandalf and Galadriel fear to wield the Ring? The problem is that the Rings corrupt. The One corrupts because it contains a goodly portion of Sauron's power and will, it is part of Sauron himself. The Nine corrupt because through them the very same Sauron (who has the Ruling Ring) gets access to the very mind of the possessor of one of the Nine: corrupts and twists it. Good intentions may remain at first, but they would be carried through by evil means, then the very intentions would turn evil.

Ockham's razor. The easiest path is the one of least resistance. We know that at least three of the Nazgul were Numenoreans (whom Tolkien identified as 'wicked kings' and Sauronic), and Khamul was an Easterling, and they seem to have been ever under the subjugation of Sauron. Even you agree in least in part the means by which Sauron chose the Ringbearers:

Originally Posted by Gordis

When choosing a Ringwraith Sauron had to consider two things:
1.The importance of the country the nazgul represented, which would get an immortal leader and would most likely be also enthralled to Sauron for all eternity.
2.The value of the man himself. Here he could go for an outstanding man even if he wasn't bringing his country along with him - an able sorcerer or an outstanding warrior, who merited to be given one of the nine Rings and become an immortal servant of the Dark Lord.

An able 'sorceror' (like the Black Numenorean Mouth of Sauron) would be evil, as sorcery, or more particularly Necromancy, was always considered evil in Middle-earth.

Originally Posted by Gordis

Evil or good intentions of the future nazgul are immaterial in all this - whoever they were at the start they would turn evil anyway. And the best servants would be Men of integrity, originally noble and good. Like Isildur. Or Aragorn. Or Boromir.

Aragorn, like Faramir, rejected the Ring. Isildur and Boromir could not. This denotes characteristic virtues for the former, and fatal flaws in the latter that could be twisted to Sauron's will. But I see your point -- it's just that it seems more likely that a truly good and noble character would not associate with Sauron in the first place, and a wise man would always question gifts from a dark source.

Originally Posted by Gordis

By the way, Morthoron, I have read your "Tales of a Dark Continent". Great story, great settings - I loved it.
But you know, your Cui-Baili had all the makings of a nazgul, if Sauron only managed to thrust a Ring on him. He was a great man, ruler of a great country, he had enough problems to wish for some additional power. Strange that Sauron let pass such a golden opportunity. Khamul, by contrast, as you depict him, was not much of a prize - why waste a ring on such a scoundrel? Such like are ten a penny in every generation.

Thanks for the kind words. That story was a pleasure to write. I don't know where you read it at (its posted on at least two sites), but there is a companion piece 'The Quest of the Three Kindreds' floating about as well.

As far as the Ring going to Khamul, he was, of course, a chieftain of the great confederation of tribes eventually to be known as the Balchoth (and save for some bad luck, and miscalculation of his enemies strength and cunning, could have been emperor of all lands east of the Orocarni Mountains). If you remember, the Ring was offered to Cui-Baili's father, Cui-Ealain, who rejected the embassy of Mordor (wisely on his part, but it was to cause his death). Had Sauron offered the Ring to a later generation, he might have caught Cui-Baili at a weak moment at the end of his life, but domination or avarice was not necessarily motivational factors for Cui-Baili, so it really wouldn't have worked.

[The Might]

I believe that this other discussion going may need a thread of its own as it is going quite off-topic, although interesting to read.

So yeah, back to the idea with the elements.
You say that not considering the other Rings in connection to earth and aether makes the scheme less perfect, but then again Vilya's greater power already makes the scheme imperfect, something strange when talking about classical elements in perfect balance.

It just doesn't add up for me, I have more reason to think against an intended balance of elements within the Rings of Power.

[Gordis]

Originally Posted by The Might

I believe that this other discussion going may need a thread of its own as it is going quite off-topic, although interesting to read.

I agree. How is in normally done on this forum? Is there a mod with big scissors who comes and cuts the thread in two? Or should we open a new thead ourselves and repost the relevant bits? I need an advice, so I shall wait with my reply to Morthoron ans Alfirin.

Originally Posted by The Might

It just doesn't add up for me, I have more reason to think against an intended balance of elements within the Rings of Power.

Well, you can't deny that the Three are connected with the elements: it is canon. So, the connection of the other rings with the elements makes sense. The major problem had been that it was next to impossible to establish such connection with four elements, but quite possible with five. That is about all I wanted to say: I have no data that Tolkien had such connection in mind.

Another thing: the stones of the Three match the fates of the three Silmarils: one perished in the fire by Maedhros, one cast in the sea by Maglor, and one sailing in the air with Eärendil. Perhaps it is this way that the elements came into play at the stage when Celebrimbor alone was making the Three. Maybe the elements as such weren't even considered when Annatar and Celebrimbor were discussing the Ring-project.

Originally Posted by The Might

So yeah, back to the idea with the elements.
You say that not considering the other Rings in connection to earth and aether makes the scheme less perfect, but then again Vilya's greater power already makes the scheme imperfect, something strange when talking about classical elements in perfect balance.

In Arda some of the Valar are connected with the elements: Manwe with Air, Ulmo with water, Aule with fire, Yavanna with Earth, Mandos with the Spirit World. And of them all, Manwe is the mightiest, just as the Ring of Air is the mightiest of the Three.

By the way, Vilya is called "the mightiest of the Three" - LOTR "The Grey Havens", yet in UT "Galadriel and Celeborn" Nenya is called the Chief of the Three . So, it doesn't seem that the Rings varied in power very much, otherwise there won't have been such confusion.
Personally, I believe that it was Nenya that was the masterpiece of Celebrimbor's craft, even if it was not the strongest of the Rings. He made it all alone as a gift for the woman he hopelessly loved: no doubt it was the most perfect of his creations. He chose for it pure Mithril instead of "sullied" Gold, he adorned it with adamant, the most spectacular of stones. Nenya was associated with water, and thus with Ulmo, who alone of all the 14 Valar cared for the exiled Noldor, never abandoning them.

[Estelyn Telcontar]

Originally Posted by Gordis

I agree. How is in normally done on this forum? Is there a mod with big scissors who comes and cuts the thread in two? Or should we open a new thead ourselves and repost the relevant bits?

Please open a new thread and repost the relevant bits. Cutting those posts or parts of them from this thread would be tricky at best, because they contain points that are relevant to this discussion as well.

[Gordis]

Thanks, Estelyn.

The new thread on the future nazgul is HERE and the side-discussion is being relocated there.