[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.