[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by Firefoot

It seems to me that there is an underemphasis in this thread on Sauron's ability to deceive people. The future-Nazgul could very well have been just, decent Men, deceived by Sauron into believing good of the Rings. Sauron at this point emphasized his reputation as a gift giver; the rings could no doubt have been presented as kingly gifts, able to extend the abilities, wisdom, etc. of the bearer. Not unlike the fruit in the garden of Eden, right?

It is not an underemphasis of Sauron's ability, it is rather accepting that often a great lie and much effort is totally unnecessary (Ockham's Razor used in a practical sense), particularly in rough, unschooled barbarian warriors and rulers in the Dark Ages (because, for all intents and purposes, that is what we are dealing with). I am merely saying that Sauron most likely didn't have to go too far out of his way to 'ensnare' those he thought worthy of bearing the Rings ('worthy' in a pejorative sense). Tolkien uses the term 'Rings of Power' purposely, and as Tolkien stated, "'power' is an ominous and sinister word in all these tales". He also uses the term "lust for domination".

Originally Posted by Firefoot

Take a king who desired to rule justly and well, who may have had a group of insurgents on his hands... presented in the right way, a ring might seem a desirable tool indeed! It would be taken with a desire to work good, but the man would become trapped and twisted - that desire to rule well might turn into sheer desire for power thus leading to tyranny.

Yes, in theory you are perhaps correct, but in fact there is no evidence that that was the case (what we have is Gandalf offering conjecture on what might happen or could have happened -- there is nothing concrete). I realize this is an exercise in conjecture, but of those Nazgul who are idenitfied by region (the three Numenoreans and one Easterling), it is evident that, particularly with the Numenoreans, they were already Sauronian before accepting the Rings ('wicked Kings' and 'sorcerors' as Tolkien refers to them). It seems equally certain that the Easterling was not some benevolent king striving to ward off insurgency; rather, as with all Easterlings under Sauron's sway (the Balchoth, Variags and Wainriders, for instance) they are powerful barbarian warriors, and quite successful in their incursions against the West. And given Sauron's rudimentary battle strategems (he was never a good tactician in war), which were to bludgeon, to overwhelm, to slaughter, it would seem his chief lieutenants generaled in the manner of barbarian warlords.

Originally Posted by Firefoot

I'm not saying that the future-Nazgul were necessarily good men... but they weren't necessarily evil either. They could easily have been either, and probably there was a mix of both. Was Boromir evil? By no means! Yet I could easily see him as the sort of person that Sauron might have sought out with one of the Nine had he lived a couple thousand years earlier.

Boromir was confronted with the One Ring, and not a lesser Ring. Would he have succumbed to the lure of one of the Nine? I don't know, but then again he was not thirsting for domination or power either. His brother refused the One Ring, and I don't see Faramir accepting one of the Nine either. Give some men credit for having the strength of will to deny the gift (or find it unnecessary), just as you are so certain that none could withstand it.

Originally Posted by Gordis

Khamul in LOTR seems to be a very patient being: both the Gaffer and Maggot had been quite rude to him, yet he let them live. Had he been a bloodthirsty monster in life, at least Maggot's head could have been chopped off without any repercussions...

The Nazgul's primary weapon is fear. When confronted by someone who is fearless, like Maggot (and the altercation occurred during the day, when the Nazgul are at their weakest), they don't appear to be much good at fighting. How else would one explain Aragorn driving off several at once on Weathertop when the Ring was in their grasp (and in the dead of night)? There is also the consideration that a murder in the Shire would raise the local folk in anger (there were several Hobbit farmhands in Maggot's household), which would be counterproductive in the Nazgul's search.

And Gordis, the words 'sorceror' and 'sorcery' are always used by Tolkien in a negative sense, meaning 'black arts' and most often 'necromancy'. I have not seen one instance in Tolkien's writing where 'sorceror' has a positive meaning.