The Barrow-Downs Discussion Forum

The Barrow-Downs Discussion Forum (
-   Haudh-en-Ndengin (
-   -   Which member of the Fellowship could bear the Ring longest without being corrupted? (

GaladrieloftheOlden 02-25-2003 04:47 PM

Which member of the Fellowship could bear the Ring longest without being corrupted?
Ok. What if Frodo were killed, but the Ring "survived" in the hands of the Fellowship. Who do you think would be the best bearer? I don't have a set opinion, more of an opinion about each one. (I am sorry, I think I've seen a thread like this somewhere, but I couldn't find it.)

Sam- He should be pretty good, but you can never tell. From the short period when he was Ringbearer, you could see that he did a good job. However, I see three problems here: A. It siad something like that Sam would have had a hard time fighting with Gollum when he caught him, probably meaning he'd be an unlooked- for tender Smeagol- meal. B. If he did manage to catch Gollum, he would kill him right away, leaving nobody to bite off his finger at the Cracks of Doom. C. He never did get along with Faramir, and irritated him, so I somehow don't think he'd be allowed to keep on his way to Morodor.

Merry or Pippin: They are nice people- errr, hobbits- but they would probably friek out at some point, or submit to the Ring's power, though somehow I can't imagine it in my head. But then, I have a limited imagination. [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img]

Boromir- Wow, best choice. [img]smilies/evil.gif[/img]

Gandalf- As he said, too powerful. But at least things would be better off for a while...Well...Maybe not.

Aragorn- definitely better than many, but really, he would probably get tempted after a while. Better than Boromir though! [img]smilies/biggrin.gif[/img]

Gimli- there is a thread on this somewhere, and, as somebody there said, he would probably rely too much on himself, would certainly would scorn the help of any Elves, no matter how helpful it might be, and would get eaten up with want of mithril and precious gems and stay in Moria, probabaly finally getting killed by the Orcs or the Balrog or the Watcher in the Water.

Legolas- I think he wouldn't be bad at all. Other than Hobbits, Elves would probably hold out for longer than most others, and resist the Ring for as long as possible. (eg- Galadriel, and Elrond when he was healing Frodo, he had the chance, and also it said somewhere that the Ring had been put on a new chain while Frodo was in Rivendell- an Elf would have had to have done that.) Still, I wouldn't know, because Galadriel was a High Elf, after all, and a Grey Elf might not be able to resist as well.

I don't know, really. What do you people think?

D 02-25-2003 05:49 PM

Sam - I don't think he knows enough about the ring to know the dangers of it. Even in Mordor, I felt that he just put it on for safety not knowing what could actually happen. So unless he was given further knowledge of the ring, otherwise, he couldn't do the job very well.

Legolas - I think he would be pretty good. But I think he's too old. He's got too much knowledge about the world that he could use to his advantage.

Aragorn - He's got a contradicting life. I think he's got great will but the ring, I don't know.

Mattius 02-25-2003 06:01 PM

Good thread, hmm let me think. I would have to say either of the three hobbits as they are, well, the least intelligent when it comes to the wider world. All they wanted was to destroy the Ring and get home to the Shire. The others may have used the Ring to help aid their peoples ie Legalos to help protect Mirkwood, Gimli the Lonely Mountain etc. The hobbits would have been too niave and just gone to the volcanoe. [img]smilies/biggrin.gif[/img]

[ February 25, 2003: Message edited by: Mattius ]

Faenaduial 02-25-2003 06:04 PM

Sam - He's probably the best choice after Frodo. He has a good heart and is determined once he sets his mind to something. Although I agree he would probably make the wrong choices along the way.

Legolas - I think the ring is perilous for any of the elves. Notice Elrond would not touch it even to destroy it.

Adanadhel 02-25-2003 07:29 PM

Good Topic.

I wonder about Gimli. The dwarves had the power to resist the effects of the dwarven rings. They never turned into wraiths (much to Sauron's dismay). The one ring was much stronger though, so this natural resistance would likely be overwhelmed.

I think he better the person, the more good, the more innocent (not meaning ignorant) or pure their soul was, the better chance they would have to resist for a longer time. I think that is why hobbits are good.

Also, Gandalf would be good. Once he was corrupted by the ring, it would be very very very bad. (is this an understatement - even with all the verys???)

Eruwen 02-25-2003 08:03 PM

Sam- He might be a good ringbearer. Although, being Frodo's faithful companion I don't think he would go on in his place. I think he might give the ring to someone else in that he doesn't feel it would be right for him to take it. If he was told to, on the other hand, like Frodo was by Gandalf, I think he would do it in respect for Frodo. Hobbits have a good heart...this one for sure. Remember, he's Samwise the Brave. He could do it.

Merry or Pippin: I think it would depened on when the choice had to be made. If it was near the end of the last battle, then sure. I think one of them might be able to. Other than that, I don't think they were ready enought to take on such an enormous responsibility.

Boromir- Not even. The hearts of men are very corruptible.

Gandalf- Gandalf was right in this one. Although he is a very powerful wizard, I think he would fall to the power of the ring as Saruman did. He would not be able to make it that far. The ring is too strong.

Aragorn- To give him credit, I think he would last for a while. Though, I fear, as Boromir did, he would give in. He is human. Men are weak. There is no hope in them when it comes to destroying the ring.

I'm not sure about Legolas and Gimli. The would be good choices, but they are better suited in battle than in destroying a ring. That is just my opinion though.

The Saucepan Man 02-25-2003 08:09 PM

I have always had this notion that Hobbits have a unique ability to resist the Ring longer than the other races. I am not sure whether there is any justification for this in the books, but I have a feeling that I picked it up from somewhere. Maybe it is simply their innocence and blissful insularity that makes them good candidates.

So, on this basis, I would nominate any of the other Hobbits, although Pippin might have been a somewhat dangerous choice, given his predeliction for getting himself into trouble [img]smilies/rolleyes.gif[/img] .

Next up would be Gimli. As Adanadhel noted, Dwarves were resistant to the power of the seven rings. And it is surely underestimating his devotion to the Fellowship to think that he might have become distracted from the task in hand (any more than any of the others).

But, the problem is that none of them could have done it alone. And I doubt that any of the other members of the Fellowship would have had the same devotion to whoever bore the Ring that Sam had to Frodo. And it was really Sam's devotion to him that got Frodo to Mount Doom.

So, in the end, it had to be Frodo and Sam. [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

GaladrieloftheOlden 02-25-2003 08:31 PM

The thing is, it said somewhere that though Dwarves did not become wraiths from the power of the Ring, they got much greedier and lusted for gold. This is why I think that if Gimli got the Ring he would simply stay in Moria and look for mithril. [img]smilies/eek.gif[/img] Too bad! [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img]

Fingon 02-25-2003 09:14 PM

i think that sam would be able to bear the ring to the crack of doom and destroy it. if not by his own will then by the memory of frodo his master. he would do it because it had to be done.

Arvedui III 02-25-2003 09:55 PM

Yep, Sam's the best one for the job, mainly because he's so simple and good-hearted. But Here's an interesting thought my friend ask me: Would Sam have been a better Ring-barer then Frodo? I realize that the ring suduces all things in the end, but could Sam have been less corouped by the time he reached Mt. Doom? Dunno, I'm probibly ranting on ilrevivent stuff, but it is an interesting thought. [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

Alatįriėl Lossėhelin 02-25-2003 10:23 PM

I think Sam would probably have been able to resist the Ring's power longer than any of the others, but I don't think he would have been able to make it to Mt. Doom alone. I don't think any of the others could/would have provided the kind of help and support to Sam that Sam provided to Frodo. I agree with Galadriel (movie) in that: "This task was appointed to you, and if you do not find a way, no one will." So, if Frodo had been killed, I don't believe anyone else would have been able to destroy the Ring.

Earendil Halfelven 02-26-2003 10:04 AM

I think Gandalf would be the best choice because he is the strongest member. It would be bad IF the ring corrupted him. I think Gandalf has the wisdom and the power to resist the ring long enough to destroy it.

lord of dor-lomin 02-26-2003 01:03 PM

It's great to think of who would be the best choice, just as long as you keep in mind that no one, nobody, could willingly destroy the ring.

Some would make it farther than others (my bet would be on a hobbit), but not a single person (or hobbit, elf, dwarf, or wizard) would've made it all the way and been able to destroy it, and I doubt anyone would've done better than Frodo. He was made for the job.

The Saucepan Man 02-26-2003 03:59 PM


I think Gandalf would be the best choice because he is the strongest member.
But Gandalf's own instinct was that he was not best placed to take the Ring. He refused it when offered it by Frodo. And, if he thought that he was the best choice, surely he would have done so (albeit reluctantly).

Anyway, given the terrible consequences had he succumbed to it, it would have been a huge risk to take. Surely even more risky than sending it all the way to Mordor in the hands of an unassuming Hobbit.

Tellonniel 02-26-2003 04:03 PM

I think that Sam would have been the best. Hobbits seem the most resistant to the ring's evil and I think Sam is probably the strongest of spirit of him, Merry and Pippen. [img]smilies/rolleyes.gif[/img]

Lyta_Underhill 03-01-2003 04:54 PM

Many people here believe Sam would be the best for the job, and I can say I could argue in his favor as well; but consider this: what is the route of the Ring to Sam's corruption? There always is a path, and I believe it is Sam's love for Frodo that would do him in, strange as that seems to be coming from my fingertips. If Frodo had died, Sam would go on in memory of Frodo, as he tried to do at the pass of Cirith Ungol. But I think the Ring would play on the loss of Frodo so hard that Sam would be disheartened as the Ring grew heavy upon him. I think he would despair as Frodo despaired and, in the end, he would wish much more strongly to join Frodo in death than for anyone's worldly quest. I fear the damage to Sam would be as great or greater than that done to Frodo. It is possible Sam could have made it to Mount Doom and cast the Ring in, but only with himself attached to it. It certainly would have killed him. Without Frodo, Sam with the Ring upon him would be dead in spirit in due time, and given the chance, dead in fact.

I would say that Sam's choices at Cirith Ungol are motivated not only from love of Frodo, but also from the fear of losing Frodo. This fear is what the Ring can play on in Sam's mind. Certainly he considers turning Mordor into a great garden spot, but without Frodo, it would mean nothing.

So, yes, Sam could do it without Frodo, but with the added burden of the Ring upon him, Sam is as good as destroyed.

The question of Merry and Pippin: would they make good companions for Sam sans Frodo? It is hard to say; they were not nearly so close to him and the relationship is not as strong, but I can see Merry and Pippin pledging themselves to this cause with as much solemnity as they pledged themselves to Theoden and Denethor. I have great faith in Pippin to recognize madness and its dangers, and to act quickly to counteract them, despite his seeming foolishness. He could have kept a handle on Sam when, not if, he went mad. And Merry is VERY good with directions; I think he could have guided them into Mordor without Gollum (but I'd think much more tentatively and possibly with help from Faramir's men).

These are just a few thoughts of mine. I hate to think of poor Sam destroyed by the Ring. Somehow it is even worse a thought than what actually happens to Frodo. Thanks for your indulgence!


Lyra Greenleaf 03-01-2003 05:40 PM

Sam: he was tempted, imagining mordor as a garden if i remember right, but seemed to shake it off. i think he would do OK except that i don't know if he would be motivated enough to take it to mordor if staying with frodo was taken away.

Merry/Pip: too silly. they do grow and become good warriors and whatever, but i can't imagine either of them lasting a day in mordor.

Gandalf: as i believe film-Gandalf says, "I would use this ring from a wish to do good, but through me it would do great evil or some-such". too powerful.

Aragorn/Boromir: the hearts of men are too easily corrupted.

Gimli: i really don't know. i have no clues at all!

Legolas: i reckon he'd be pretty good. when galadriel did her looking into their hearts bit, him and aragorn were the only ones who could bear her eyes for long as they were pure in their intentions. i think thats right? however i think, given time, it would corrupt him.

toss up between Sam and Legolas i suppose.

Lyta_Underhill 03-01-2003 11:34 PM

You know, Lyra, I was all set to get all huffy at you having called Merry and Pippin "too silly," and then I thought about what really would have happened to them in Mordor. M & P are more like regular, straightforward warriors, like the Men and the Elves and the Dwarves, than the quiet, spy-like hobbit that Frodo is. Sam, too, has more of a "regular guy" attitude than Frodo does. I would not agree with you in your assessment of M & P as "silly" but I could say that their approach in Mordor is likely to be much more open and confrontational than that of Frodo. They were most in their element challenging the clear and present danger of ruffian Men in the Shire and also they were capable of great deeds on the battlefield. They were not spies. I do think, however, that they would make good protectors for the Ring-bearer.

The other problem I can see now that you've opened my mind a bit is that Sam was a follower; he went to Mordor because Frodo was going there. I imagine that, if the three hobbits were thrust into a situation where they had to infiltrate Mordor by themselves, that Merry would be the leader, Pippin the enforcer and Orc-thumper, and Sam the Ring-bearer. What do you think?

BTW, thanks for the kick to my consciousness, Lyra! I like it when I get riled up and have to think! (I'm rather protective of my hobbit Pippin, and I have probably a distorted view of him because I'm so fond of him!)

Lyta [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

nPiLL 03-02-2003 11:30 AM

I would have to say Sam. I believe he would be able to carry the burden of the ring because through out LotR, he is the one helping Frodo along and helping him keep going. I think anyone else in the fellowship would be easily corrupted by the ring.

[ March 02, 2003: Message edited by: nPiLL ]

Beren87 03-02-2003 12:46 PM


I have always had this notion that Hobbits have a unique ability to resist the Ring longer than the other races. I am not sure whether there is any justification for this in the books
It is justified, and you are correct. Those with a simpler lifestyle are less prone to the influence of the ring. The main example of this is of course Tom Bombadil.

I would say that Sam would be the least influenced of the Fellowship, but the person that would actually make it with the ring to Mt.Doom and still destroy it would be Aragorn. The hearts of men are easily corrupted, that's true, but the heart of a true king is not the heart of a normal man. Aragorn, to me, shows more of his elven blood than he does that of his mortal lineage.

Novlamothien 03-02-2003 03:45 PM

Personally, I do not think any of the others in the Fellowship would have made it, excpt on a very slight chance, Sam or Aragon, and on an even slighter chance, Legolas. All were chosen to protect the ring bearer, not to bear the ring, although they were supposed to carry on the quest if something happened to him. Again, I think Frodo was cut out for the job, he had the right amount of courage and wisdom, and he knew when to listen to those who were wiser than him. Sam might have made it though.

Lobelia 03-02-2003 08:26 PM

All those votes for Sam and certainly, he wouldn't have become corrupted - but as someone said, he's a follower. Sorry, guys, Sam is my favourite character, but this is a class issue. He is a peasant. In Tolkien's universe, this limits him, even if he does eventually rise to the upper crust. Look for about five minutes. He didn't even know Frodo was alive, but he decided the world could come to an end, tough luck, just so long as he didn't have to see those orcs pawing Frodo's body!

Gandalf turned down even the job of holding the Ring for Frodo for a few minutes because he knew he'd keep it. Aragorn MIGHT have made it if he absolutely had to, but he was needed elsewhere.
No. I'm holding out for Gimli. I think he had too much sense to stick around in Moria after what had happened there. If anyone could part with it, he could. And please note, Thorin Oakenshield needed no Ring to get him acting as if he had one!

GaladrieloftheOlden 03-02-2003 08:59 PM

But...the Ring would just tempt him with its beauty, as it had the Dwarves who held the Seven. Probably he'd just use it to help his people and country, and to find precious metals.

Orual 03-02-2003 10:37 PM

I don't have the quote on hand, but somewhere Tolkien said that Frodo went as far with the Ring as any mortal could have. People have said that Frodo was weak not to throw the Ring into Mount Doom when he had the opportunity; Tolkien disagreed. So the question is really, which member of the Fellowship could bear the Ring as long as Frodo did without being corrupted?

I think that it's possible that Sam could have completed the Quest, as far as Frodo had, after Shelob's Lair, if only out of love for Frodo and the wish to honor his memory by finishing the task he started. But Sam was, as has been stated, far too much of a follower to have taken the initiative to volunteer to be Ringbearer.

I have more thoughts on this, but need to go.


Lyta_Underhill 03-02-2003 11:54 PM

That sounds right to me, Orual, although I haven't seen the quote. For who of the Fellowship could withstand in his mind the force that moved his body against him, and at the same time, urge another to stop him. Frodo's strength of mind is incredible at Mount Doom, when he feels his hand moving towards the Ring and he manages to tell Sam to stop him, even as he is being utterly physically controlled. I am more impressed with Frodo every time I read of his struggles with the Ring, but it is difficult to think through what another would have done in his place.

Sam was a follower, yes, but he was not only steadfast, he was persistent. Frodo would have perished if not for Sam; It is hard to say what Sam would do if he were bereft of Frodo, for it is his love of Frodo that keeps him going on the Quest. Would the memory keep him going? Hard to say.


Mattius 03-03-2003 09:22 AM

It is my belief that if Sam would have had to take the Ring he would have succeeded because his love for Frodo was more powerful than the will of the Ring.

Also Sam is a pretty simple 'what you see is what you get' kinda guy and has no major desire to be king or lord of any place as Gimli or Boromir might do.

He also looked into Galadrial's Mirror and saw what would happen to the Shire if the Quest was to fail and I think that this along with his love and devotion for Frodo would have seen him to Mount Doom

HCIsland 03-03-2003 10:10 AM


He also looked into Galadrial's Mirror and saw what would happen to the Shire if the Quest was to fail and I think that this along with his love and devotion for Frodo would have seen him to Mount Doom
Funny, I always figured this would have been Sam's weakness. It may have took a while, but in the end I think the Ring would have convinced Sam that going home and taking care of The Shire would have been the best course.


Lyta_Underhill 03-03-2003 12:45 PM

HC, I tend to agree with you. Sam almost left in Lothlorien because of what he saw in the Mirror of Galadriel. It was only by knowing that Frodo was with him and in need of him that kept him from darting back there. Without Frodo there, what would keep him from it?

This brings my thoughts back to Aragorn, who is stronger than most and I am always trying to put my finger on why. He overcame the Palantir of Orthanc and used it to determine his course into the Paths of the Dead, when one as strong as Denethor could not hope to escape unscathed. Is it his pure will? Is it the fact that he, as a Ranger, has given up all pretense associated with a rightful returning King and learned an ultimate humility? There is a strength beyond what I can explain in human terms inside Aragorn. Many say it is his Elven heritage, the blood of Numenor and a divine right of sorts, but no preordained "right" can overcome the soul of a man himself when he is alone.

My idea is: if Aragorn accompanied Sam to Mordor, I think he could keep him on track spiritually, but I think that Aragorn is not the right person for the job, as he has the responsibility of the King; Aragorn's weakness might be that he would insist on taking the dangerous path to keep others from taking harm from it. Aragorn would have followed Frodo into the very fires of Mount Doom, but then where would Minas Tirith be? It would be a race, but would the people of Gondor accept a King who abandoned them in their need?

I suppose this is an argument against Aragorn going to Mordor more than anything else. I think either Legolas or Gimli would be a better choice for accompanying Sam, but I also think that Sam would lose hope much more quickly without one of his own to be with him, as he is a follower, as I said before. The question then, is would Merry and/or Pippin fall prey to the desire to return to the Shire and set things to rights? I think Pippin would eventually have come around (he is bent on stopping Frodo from going to Mordor when the Fellowship breaks at Parth Galen). Pippin hardened considerably, as did Merry during the course of the story, and I can see a reflection the "do it and die" mentality that Frodo had in the thoughts of Pippin at the Gate of Morannon. Throughout the story, there is this thin line I sense, of despair trying to break through, and the hobbits manage to keep it at bay, all except Frodo, who is most beset, and even he has a spirit beyond hope, as if he is possessed by the very essence of the Good...I think this is an indefinable quality of Hobbits that makes them special. And I think this is a quality Gandalf alone recognized in the beginning.

I have rambled indeed! I hope you enjoy the post, and thanks again for your indulgence!


[ March 03, 2003: Message edited by: Lyta_Underhill ]

GaladrieloftheOlden 03-03-2003 05:12 PM from what I see, is this the "average" viewpoint?

Sam- Might be able to carry out the quest for the love of his master, but too much of a follower.
Merry and Pippin- Not Ringbearer material, but could be good protectors for the Rinf, as far as their strength would let them. Possibly too simple.
Aragorn- Possibly, as he was a very strong Man, but his will would probably finally break, granted, later than those of many others could.
Gandalf- Much too powerful.
Gimli- Unsure, has good stength except that it might make him lust for precious things, or that he would be too headstrong.
Legolas- Possibly, but too old, with too much knowledge. Still, a possibility.
Boromir- Hmmm....I wonder. [img]smilies/rolleyes.gif[/img]

Is that about right from what you're saying?

The Saucepan Man 03-03-2003 06:20 PM

I'll stick with my view that a Hobbit would have had the greatest chance of getting the Ring to Mount Doom without succumbing to it. And that was the mission, to get the Ring to Mount Doom, for none could have thrown it in.

Gandalf himself refuses the Ring. Perhaps that is just because the consequences would have been terrible had he succumbed do it, but his refusal suggests doubt in his mind that he would have been able to resist it for long enough.

As strong in spirit and will as Aragorn and Legolas undoubtedly were, the fact that such powerful Elves as Galadriel and Elrond refuse the Ring (as well as a Maiar such as Gandalf) suggests that they would have been at risk of succumbing en route.

Which leaves Gimli. I still think that he would have had a chance. Yes, the Ring would have played upon his Dwarven predilection for gold and gems. But it played on the weaknesses of any who bore it. And the Dwarves' resistance to the Seven Rings suggests that Dwarves had a stronger resistance to this sort of power than most.

But, ultimately, it is the Hobbits who, to my mind, are best placed to resist the corrupting influence of the Ring. So, which Hobbit would have been the best to take over from Frodo? Well, if a substitute Ringbearer had been required early on, then I would go for Sam. I think that there is definately something in the idea that he would have carried through Frodo's task out of love for Frodo. Undoubtedly the Ring would have played on his weaknesses, as it did at Cirith Ungol, and quite possibly he would have been tempted to return to the Shire to put things right. But, being a Hobbit, he would have stood a good chance of resisting that temptation for long enough.

Having said that, if a new Ringbearer was not required until after Merry and Pippin had been through their character-forming experiences, then I think that either of them, at that stage, would have been as good a choice as Sam, possibly better given that they were not "followers" like Sam. Their experiences had toughened them up mentally (and physically) and they had developed a significantly increased appreciation of just what was at stake. And out of them, I would go for Merry, as having the greater common sense out of the two.

So my vote for substitute Ringbearer goes to a post-Isengard Meriadoc Brandybuck.

Lyta_Underhill 03-03-2003 11:01 PM

On this thought, (a worthy one indeed Saucepan Man!), I can only comment thus. As I watched the two separated friends, Merry and Pippin, as they were plunged into their individual tests in battle, I noticed that Merry does have great common sense, but somehow he is more drawn to serve and be a part of something larger than himself, whereas Pippin is more likely to act out of the direct and immediate influence of his heart. This could be a viewpoint based on the very different experiences they had; Pippin could NOT have served Denethor the way Merry did Theoden. Pippin ended up having to think for himself (very quickly!) and act on his own initiative regarding strategic decisions. Thus, I couldn't say decisively that Merry is the best choice of the two. I could say that if one carried the Ring, the other should be present in support. Merry could probably have kept a level head, but Pippin could think faster in a pinch, IMO. They complement each other much like Frodo and Sam do. So, I suppose I would ideally keep the hobbits together, but I can see Merry and Pippin doing what Frodo and Sam did in a way. I can especially see Pippin taking on like Sam to rescue Merry from the Tower if that turn of events did happen to occur, but, of course, Gollum would never have trusted either Merry or Pippin and thus would never have served them. I wonder if Merry or Pippin would have the presence of mind to make Gollum swear on the Precious to help them? The delicate task of "the taming of Smeagol" is one aspect of the quest that I think ONLY Frodo could have handled. Thus, at Mount Doom, I imagine one of them would be struggling with the influence of the Ring and the other would be fighting off a mad Gollum. In fact, I wonder if it would turn out the same here. Say Pippin is fighting off Gollum, and Merry is struggling with the Ring. One bad thing here is that I think Pippin would kill Gollum; he would know nothing of the pity of Frodo or Bilbo, or of Sam once he had once borne the Ring. I think the same is true of Merry. I do wonder if Sam, Merry or Pippin would understand the "pity of Bilbo" well enough to spare Gollum at the end had Frodo not shown it as he did. For we know, that if Gollum made it to the Ringbearer, whoever it may be, he'd have that Ring and the finger too if need be.

Which brings me to another question: would Gollum have plunged into Orodruin if he had NOT sworn on the Precious as Frodo made him do? There are a lot of variables here. It is hard to say what alternative would have been the best, except that I do agree with the Saucepan Man--the hobbits are best suited to it.

The other members of the Fellowship would be useful in this quest for support but not as Ring-bearers. Gimli seems the most resistant of the others, but the Dwarves have shown their attitudes with regard to treasure and possessions to be most stubborn and dangerous (i.e. Thorin Oakenshield in The Hobbit!), so I wouldn't risk it on empirical evidence of the Dwarven kind. Thanks for giving me lots to think about!


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:59 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.