Would he have done it?

[Boromir88]

I think we are all aware of Letter 246 where Tolkien says if anyone would be expected to beat Sauron, it would be Gandalf. So, there's an established possibility that Gandalf could beat Sauron with the Ring and usurp his place. We also know that the Istari were forbidden to match their power with Sauron. So my simple question is...

If absolutely necessary (and I mean no other possible way of defeating Sauron for good...i.e. destroying the ring) would Gandalf, for the good of Middle-earth, broken the rule set on him and overthrow Sauron? This basically comes down to whether you think Gandalf cared enough about Middle-earth to save it by using the Ring and defeating Sauron, if there was no other way (while risking a lot of horrible consequences). Or whether Gandalf (who was aware of the consequences) believed that eventhough this was Middle-earth's only chance, there would be no victory in the long run.

[Folwren]

I don't know, Boro - but no offence to you, I think it's almost a pointless question. Well, not quite pointless, but we have to take different things into account. IF there was NO other way to defeat Sauron beyond Gandalf taking the Ring himself (that is what you said, isn't it?) and fighting him, then I don't think that would really count as saving Middle-Earth because we've been told time and again that should any other powerful person take the Ring, they'd become just as bad as Sauron himself. But, okay, saying that it could save Middle-Earth. . .

I think in that case, rules might be changed, or bent, or simply made null. If Gandalf had to do it, he would've. But I don't think he would have done it without permission.

What's more, Eru or Manwë (whoever made the rule) wouldn't put Gandalf or any other Istari into that possition - break the rule or be the cause of Middle-Earth's ruin. It's simply not fair.

Just a few thoughts. . .

--Folwren

[Gurthang]

Originally Posted by Folwren

What's more, Eru or Manwë (whoever made the rule) wouldn't put Gandalf or any other Istari into that possition - break the rule or be the cause of Middle-Earth's ruin. It's simply not fair.

Who says that a Hobbit or a Man or Gandalf (or even Manwe) has the same sense of 'fair' that Eru does. What Iluvatar does cannot be judged wrong or right by lesser beings, it is right by the nature that Eru is the Creator and therefore always right. But I digress...

As to Boromir's question, I'd like to think no, he wouldn't have ever taken the Ring. In the Fellowship, he does not take the Ring, because he knows he will be tempted to use it. This shows, to me at least, that he would not have used it.

[Eonwe]

Originally Posted by fea

He also knew, I think, that there are some things worse than death.

well said!

well, i don't know how much of a situation we can conjure up about gandalf needing to take the ring. he never met up with frodo and sam (ie. had the opertunity to take the ring) after he fell at kazad-dum. and he certainly didn't need to use the ring to destroy sauron up till that time...

but, supposing we make a hypothetical situation where he must take the ring to save middle-earth, then no i don't think he would have. that would be a hard choise for anyone. in the end though, i don't see what he would gain. evil gandlaf is as bad as evil sauron, so you might as well keep you honor, if middle-earth is going to the pits either way. that is the pragmatist's answer. like feanor said, the idealists answer is emphatically "no of course not!"

[Morsul the Dark]

He most definately would have done it...i mean were talking no possible chance of victory other than this... and quite frankly should it come down to this self sacrifice i think(now heres where i get attacked)Eru would have given Gandalf the needed strength to overcome corruption for doing what needed to be done

[Kuruharan]

To answer the original question...

Gandalf as Ring-Lord would have been far worse than Sauron. He would have remained 'righteous' but self-righteous. He would have continued to rule and order things for 'good', and the benefit of his subjects...Gandalf would have made good detestable and seem evil.
Ltr. 246

...so I think this clears up any question of any other alternative than the destruction of the Ring being Good. It wouldn't have been. There was no other saving of Middle-earth.

However, I'm afraid Gandalf himself would disagree with those of you who think he would not have taken the Ring in extremities.

"No!" cried Gandalf, springing to his feet. With that power I should have power too great and terrible. And over me the Ring would gain a power still greater and more deadly." His eyes flashed and his face was lit as if by a fire within. 'Do not tempt me! For I do not wish to become like the Dark Lord himself. Yet the way of the Ring to my heart is by pity, pity for weakness and the desire of strength to do good. Do not tempt me! I dare not take it, even to keep it safe, unused. The wish to wield it would be too great for my strength
emphasis mine

There is here a (I think a very healthy) self-skepticism. I think this illustrates that Gandalf was not immune from the call of the Ring and feared he might succumb. In fact, the whole quest could probably be viewed as Gandalf's desperate attempt to avoid taking the Ring himself.

[Folwren]

Originally Posted by Gurthang

Who says that a Hobbit or a Man or Gandalf (or even Manwe) has the same sense of 'fair' that Eru does. What Iluvatar does cannot be judged wrong or right by lesser beings, it is right by the nature that Eru is the Creator and therefore always right. But I digress...

No one says. But if Eru's anything like God (and I've seen lots of parallels in Tolkien's work) then he wouldn't do something like that. It's not his way or his nature. Think about it.

-- Folwren

[Gurthang]

Originally Posted by Folwren

No one says. But if Eru's anything like God (and I've seen lots of parallels in Tolkien's work) then he wouldn't do something like that. It's not his way or his nature. Think about it.

Yes, I definitely agree with that. Whatever Eru (and God) chooses to do is right. He can't do anything wrong. And that means he wouldn't make anyone do wrong.

But my point was that people far less than equal to Eru can't choose what is right(fair). They may choose to do what is right(fair), or discover what is right(fair), but they aren't the ones who say this is right(fair) or this is wrong(unfair). It is up to Eru to pronounce what is right(fair). But what is right(fair) might not be the same as what Gandalf thinks is right(fair).

Basically, I'm saying that 'fair' is extremely relative to perspective, and that in situations like this, the only true perspective is Eru's, who knows the whole scheme and works it to his plan.

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

No he wouldn't have, because that's a test he already passed. By saying no to Saruman -- heck, by taking Saruman's place and becoming the White Wizard "as he was meant to be" -- Gandalf demonstrates that he has, like Galadriel, "passed the test." He too would "pass into the West and remain Gandalf".

I think the text anticipates this sort of question with Denethor, who claims that he would have taken the Ring and used it only in the last resort. Denethor is throughout a foil to Gandalf and we see how in their comparison the strengths of Gandalf (fidelity, wisdom, hope) are subverted in Denethor (pride, madness, despair). That Denethor would have used the Ring in the last resort means that his mirror-image (identical, yet reversed) Gandalf would not.

And there's no need to get into this whole "Eru would not have allowed it to go that far" for three very important reasons:

1) Eru already had let things get much worse at least twice before (Feanor's oath and the thousands of years of warring over the Silmarils; the drowning of Numenor).

2) Eru is not God -- there was no guarantee that things were going to turn out well, only a hope. If there were a guarantee that things were going to turn out well, then Gandalf would have known that (having actually met Eru) and Saruman would have never lost hope, because you can't lose what you can't have, and he wouldn't have had hope he'd have had certainty.

3) Eru doesn't really appear in LotR -- he was a creation of the "later" Tolkien; in the tale of LotR the best you've got is hope that in the long run evil will be defeated, but that might not be within the time of this world. The threat of Sauron's total victory over Middle-Earth is real, that much is made completely clear by the Wise.

[Feanor of the Peredhil]

Being the idealist that I am, I have to say that Gandalf would not have taken the Ring. He had the chance to several times, and it would have been so simple. "Here Frodo, I'll take care of that for you." But he didn't. He knew that it would corrupt him. He also knew, I think, that there are some things worse than death. On a similar point to acting for the sake of the survival of Middle Earth, Gandalf did what he could to ensure the survival of everybody that he was close to, the Fellowship not in the least. But he did not interfere. Frodo's path was ridiculously dangerous. His chances of success were not high, but Gandalf stepped in with his talk about how Frodo could take comfort that perhaps he was meant to have the Ring. Gandalf's role was as the advice-giver. He provided what he could, gave the best advice that he could, but when it came down to the last, it was in the hands of mortals in which fate rested. He knew this, and I don't think that he would have decided any differently. Not even if he alone could take out Sauron. It was not his place. He wasn't meant to.