[Legate of Amon Lanc]

Originally Posted by Boromir88

Furthermore, with the Rings of Power (again excluding the One), Gandalf says "proper gem," which suggests the gem was instrumental, or in some way an important factor in the powers of the rings. For example, Vilya, the Ring of Air, was adorned with a sapphire.
(...)

So, I think there are clear connections between the Rings of Power and gems. The great Rings of Power, specifically having "each their proper gem."

I don't want to tangent too far away from the lesser rings, but is it too much speculation to say whatever purposes the lesser rings were made for, the maker did not set in the "proper gem." Or perhaps no gem at all? Then again, the One has no gem, and it is the most powerful Ring of the bunch; being a simple band of gold. I haven't the faintest clue where this leads the discussion, but I do think at least in ring-crafting (within the context of Middle-earth)...each having a gem is important to the rings' powers.

I think what you bring up are interesting thoughts about the Three (or possibly the rest of the Great Rings, or the Rings in general), that there might be something special about the stones chosen as well. However, while I agree with the positive interpretation (the proper stone can make the Ring fulfil its ultimate purpose in the best possible manner), I do not think it works in the negative way (if a Ring does not have its proper stone, something is wrong).

I think you are misinterpreting the word "proper", or at least I never understood it that way. Granted, English is not my native language, but I have always thought that "proper" here means simply "characteristic", i.e. the stone that belongs to it, you can identify it that way. Let's say, Vilya has a sapphire in it. That is its "proper" gem - in latin, "proprius" means something like "characteristic" or "distinctive". Even the English word "propriety" does not denote something "correct", but simply something that belongs to someone. So it was a stone that belonged to that Ring, that is what I believe Gandalf meant, nothing more, nothing less.

Originally Posted by Alfirin

I like some of the theories about the lesser rings. The one peril I see is that, once you start thinking that way, you start seeing rings at the root of all thing. Say the idea of a ring that helps make enchanted weapons. I can imagine such a ring winding up amoung the men of Cardolan; perhaps being the key to their ability to make weapons unusually good at dealing with things like the Nazgul. Or say, a ring that puts you in tune with the plants, handy for conversing with any Ents who might be around in thier native tounge and getting on thier good sides (I suddenly have an image of a young elf wandering through the woods with such a ring, (in Sindarin) "I Talk to the Trees".

Why? Middle-Earth was so full of "strange creatures beyond count" - and also things beyond count, I should add at this point - so why should one start seeing Rings behind everything? There are dozens of powerful and wise men mentioned, say, in Gondor's chronicles, I can imagine one or two owning some random lesser Rings they found somewhere randomly, and being renowned for their wisdom because of it... but then the Rings would get lost, forgotten, stolen by pirates, stolen by Orcs, you name it. The story of Gollum's grandmother owning hundreds of magic Rings seemed crazy to Gandalf, but I get the impression that if she had owned just one (but of course not shared it merrily with every passing-by Déagol), it wouldn't have seemed anything that unimaginable for Gandalf. A Ring owned by an Orc chieftain renowned for his suspiciously keen mind. A Ring owned by a guardian of Lórien feared by the Orcs, because it seems one cannot hide in the deepest darkness from him. Thousands of minor characters like that certainly have existed throughout the two Ages of history of Middle-Earth when the Rings were present. We basically only know of one story (Hobbit/LotR), however important one, for something like six thousand years... that covers very little part of Middle-Earth, its inhabitants (even the important ones), and its artifacts, of course.

And just for the record, I do not think Radagast needed any Ring for his communication with the animals (nor for his "fall from duty". He loved animals even without any Ring). On top of everything, I find Radagast such a "natural" person that I would really find it awkward for him to mess around with any Rings...

Originally Posted by Alfirin

The only proposed power I do not really think a ring would be made for is increasing ambient light. Such a ring would likey be considered of little use to the elves. Remember that all of these rings are being made by Noldorians, and the Noldorians already have the Feanorian Lamps, and (from the description) those seem like almost mass produced everyday articles. I'm not all that sure the Noldor would even use candles when they had those (after all, the lamps never go out) Plus, elves have very good night vision (to see in the days before the sunlight, they'd have to) so even the light of one candle is probably enough for thier needs.

Let us please remember that I was giving examples, just like with the bear shapeshifting. From what we know there seem to have been probably at least dozens of "lesser Rings" made by the smiths, each of them very likely with different purpose (or some of them with similar, but still there would be enough distinctive ones). I have named like three possibilites. But this "ambient light", why not? Yes, Elves had Noldo-lamps (though I didn't see any in the Third Age!), but they also had the Star-glass Galadriel gave to Frodo - let's face it, Elves loved to play with light (and especially since the moment the Trees died, so basically... all the time). Such a Ring would make sense.

Originally Posted by radagastly

After all, we don't know much about the specific intended applications of the Seven or of the Nine, or of any of the lesser rings.

It is implied about the Dwarven rings - or, we know about one that it was meant to "breed gold" (even though it "needed gold to breed gold") - not sure what exactly to imagine under it (probably not a "Multiplying Ring", as in: insert a coin, two coins fall out), maybe it was a "Ring of Lucky Precious Ore-Seeking" or "Ring Making One A Skilful Merchant". In any case, the Dwarven Rings seem to be "economic Rings", as is fit for them (though, since they originally were not really intended for Dwarves, maybe it sort of was how they came to be used by their owners - maybe originally they were some sort of "Craft" or "Beauty-creating" Rings). The Nine seem to be more of the "Power and Mind-Enhancing" sort, not sure if it is directly implied, but it is said that the Nazgul became powerful Kings of Men (or already were before they got the Rings, but became more powerful after that), and some became great sorcerers etc. - so maybe the Rings were the cause for this? Rings "boosting" one's knowledge (and whether one decided to use it for studying the "arts of the Enemy" or something else was another matter), perhaps spirit, prowess, ability to see into people's hearts? (And once again, that can be used for good - to facilitate communication - or for bad, to manipulate people more easily, which would probably be the case of the Nazgul.)

Which is basically what I meant by this Control-Enhancement difference, as radagastly pointed out:

Originally Posted by radagastly

I like this distinction between "Control" and "Enhancement." Partly because I didn't think of it, so it's something new to me. Of course, enhancement is, in itself, a kind of control, though more cooperative. A race horse wins more when it allows itself to trust and be controlled by a skilled jockey. Might this actually mark the distinction between the lesser rings and the Great Rings? Consider Sauron teaching the elves greater and greater skills at capturing some kind of "enhancement" within a ring until it reached it's zenith, and then the next inevitable step in improving the craft was for the elves to impose "control" through the rings they made. This would certainly fit in with Sauron devising a "trap" which he finally sprung with the creation of the One. Just a passing thought.

So, exactly - you can create a Ring to see into people's hearts, to better understand them, a very good and useful thing... and then click, Sauron makes this one more step to make the Rings basically an instrument of control of other people.

Originally Posted by radagastly

I suspect even the lesser rings had gems of some kind. But no two gems are alike. Diamonds have flaws and inclusions, and anyone shopping for an engagement ring learns about the four 'c's' (cut, caret, clarity and color.) Might they have had cheaper stones, or the wrong kind for their specific purpose (If, as seems to be some concensus, they each had a specific purpose?)

I also think many of the lesser ones had stones. Although from Gandalf's pondering about the One (though how much Gandalf actually knew about the Rings is another topic), probably some of them also didn't (so that if you found an evidently magic Ring without gem, you couldn't be sure if it's the One or one of the others which had no gem). But that much is obvious, I think.