Was the Ring Evil?

[Beren3000]

Originally Posted by Artanis

Even if Annatar had not directly touched the Three, they were still made after his instructions. It was by his knowledge and help that Celebrimbor and the Eregion Elves were able to make such powerful Rings.

IMO, that doesn't make them evil. I think Sauron (I like how you refer to him as Annatar ) gave instructions for the making of the Three for two reasons:
1- After all his seduction and promises to the elves of Eregion, he had to give them something. After all, he wasn't called Annatar (lord of gifts) for no reason
2- He needed to be closely involved in the way all of the rings are made so that he can easily construct the Ruling Ring that can subdue the remaining 19 rings.

[Artanis]

True, I didn't mean to indicate that the 3 Elves rings were evil. It was meant as an explanation on why the One Ring had power over them.

[Haradrim]

yeah I assume thats why Galadriel wore her ring because Sauron was not in control of the one so she didnt need to be subdued.

And yeah we have made it through 6 pages. I am so happy. this is my frist forum that has actually continued! Weeee! (giddy) Everyone keep posting! YEAH!

[Attalus]

Though thhe Three were not inherently evil, JRRT described them in the Letters as sinful, because they thwarted the will of Eru that all mortal things wither and pass away.

[Artanis]

Wasn't it rather the act of using them to slow down the effects of time that was sinful, and not the rings themselves? Elrond and Gandalf seem to have used them with other purposes.

[Telcontar_Dunedain]

Well Gandalf used his to kindle the spirit of fire in other hearts.

[Attalus]

Originally Posted by Artanis

Wasn't it rather the act of using them to slow down the effects of time that was sinful, and not the rings themselves? Elrond and Gandalf seem to have used them with other purposes.

Well, according to my theology, sin can only be committed by created beings, so, I would say, yes. We are told that there was no evil in the Three.

[Ragnarok]

Originally Posted by Haradrim

but was the ring evil. Not the power of the ring but the littl egolden ring. Was it evil. I think not. I think the poor thing was a victim of circumstance. He was created to hold evil but that doesnt make him evil as he has no choice in the matter. Poor little ring.

"he"?.... I thought a ring is an inanimate object. "IT was created to hold evil" sounds better.

[Sister Golden Hair]

Originally Posted by Ragnarok

"he"?.... I thought a ring is an inanimate object. "IT was created to hold evil" sounds better.

Wouldn't you say that the One Ring was somewhat sentient?

[Telcontar_Dunedain]

Not enough to be defined he (or she).

[Beren3000]

But I thought we established earlier that the sentience of the Ring was not inherent to it, it came from the "malice and cruelty" of Sauron poured into it. So if Sauron had chosen a ping-pong ball instead of the Ring, the Ring wouldn't be sentient, but the ping-pong ball would

[Telcontar_Dunedain]

Yes but is malice and cruelty either he or she even if it comes from a he or she.

[Sister Golden Hair]

Well, I don't think we have to go as far as to give the Ring a gender.

[Haradrim]

Wow I thought I ha dconceeded but I guess Ill give i another go....
The ring was an inatimate object. However the gold that made the ring was tainted with some kind of evil not inherent to the ring. So that is not the ring's fault. And therefore I would not call it evil. I would call it a victim of circumstance. ThenSauron makes trhe ring in a place of great evil. I dont see what that has to do with the ring being evil and then he places an evil spirit ino t the ring. So the evilnese embodies the ring. I would say that the ring is not evil but in fact a victim of circumstance.

[Haradrim]

ntw if anything had a gender ot would be the spirit embodying the ring but I do not think that senteints means that it has a gender.

[Radagast The Brown]

Fine - the gold was a victim of Sauron. (just kidding) The gold, before Sauron messed up with it, had no life, nor mind, and therefore cannot be either evil or good, or a victim.

[Telcontar_Dunedain]

For reasons that have already been stated (I don't know how many times) the Ring was evil. It was always trying to get back to Sauron if it wasn't evil then it wouldn't have done and all deeds it was used for were turned to evil.

[Haradrim]

Thats my point. THe ring was inatimite so how could it be evil. Just cuz he placed some spirit inside of it. THe spirit is evil the inatimate thing is still neither. I never meant to szy it was good (tho I probably did ) How can some thing be evil it has no mind and you cant give it a mind. You can however put something evil into a inatimait object but does that make the ring evil. THat is the discussion and I personally say no. The power and all the things it did were evil but the inatimate object wasnt evil.

[Radagast The Brown]

Originally Posted by Haradrim

Thats my point. THe ring was inatimite so how could it be evil. Just cuz he placed some spirit inside of it. THe spirit is evil the inatimate thing is still neither. I never meant to szy it was good (tho I probably did ) How can some thing be evil it has no mind and you cant give it a mind. You can however put something evil into a inatimait object but does that make the ring evil. THat is the discussion and I personally say no. The power and all the things it did were evil but the inatimate object wasnt evil.

But does it important that wa sbefore? Can you say that the Nazgul are not evil? They are evil, even though not from the beginnig; the same wqith teh Ring. The gold itself was probably innocent (if you can say sio about gold, without mind), but it doesn't matter because the Ring was evil, after everything it passed.

[Haradrim]

but the NAzgul are evil because they are not just objects that sudddenly got taken over by a hostile mind. They are evil but the ring is not because it has no mind and never had one. The ring is just a place holder fo r the evil.