Return to Answer

This isn't supported in canon, but your question makes an underlying assumption that ALL hobbits are 100% the same, which I feel is not a correct assumption.

In reality, hobbits are humans (from JRRT's "storytelling" point of view, not in-universe-biological one). And one thing we know about humans is that 1-3% of them are sociopaths/psychopaths, who would gladly kill a person for a pretty ring even without the ring being Sauron's One Ring.

So, it's just as plausible to explain Smeagol's behavior by his innate negative qualities, as it is by the Ring somehow acting very differently on him than on Bagginses. This is reinforced by several different points from canon:

• We know that the other Rings amplified their wearers' attributes, e.g. Dwarves' greed... so it's possible The One ring amplified Smeagol's sociopathy.

  This was alluded to pretty explicitly by Tolkien himself. In a letter to Michael Sraight, Tolkien writes:

  The domination of the Ring was too much for the mean soul of Sméagol. But he would have never had to endure it if he had not been a mean sort of thief before it crossed his path

• We see the same existence of good/evil individual in Men in Tolkien, in general.

  Grima Wormtongue is one example. Witch-King of Angmar another (even pre-Ring). Haradrim are considered evil though that's probably just Pro-Elvish propaganda.

  • Or, hell, even in hobbits. Ted Sandyman and Lotho Sackville-Baggins are seen as bad hobbits.

• We ALSO see how the ring amplifies the natural negative qualities and behavior in everyone:

  • Humans: the lure of the Ring and its power affected Boromir vs. Faramir differently. Or Denethor (at a distance, natch) vs. Aragorn.

  • Even Wizards (Gandalf vs. Saruman, who wasn't even near the Ring)

• The Ring didn't cause other heroes to murder either - it was seen, aside from Bagginses, by everyone at Council of Elrond; by Galadriel; and Samwise Gamgee didn't seem affected at all, even less so than Frodo.

This isn't supported in canon, but your question makes an underlying assumption that all hobbits are 100% the same, which I feel is not a correct assumption.

In reality, hobbits are humans (from JRRT's "storytelling" point of view, not in-universe-biological one). And one thing we know about humans is that 1-3% of them are sociopaths/psychopaths, who would gladly kill a person for a pretty ring even without the ring being Sauron's One Ring.

So, it's just as plausible to explain Sméagol's behavior by his innate negative qualities, as it is by the Ring somehow acting very differently on him than on Bagginses. This is reinforced by several different points from canon:

• We know that the other Rings amplified their wearers' attributes, e.g. Dwarves' greed... so it's possible the One Ring amplified Sméagol's sociopathy.

  This was alluded to pretty explicitly by Tolkien himself. In a letter to Michael Straight (Letter 181), Tolkien writes:

  The domination of the Ring was too much for the mean soul of Sméagol. But he would have never had to endure it if he had not been a mean sort of thief before it crossed his path

• We see the same existence of good/evil individual in Men in Tolkien, in general.

  Grima Wormtongue is one example. The Witch-king of Angmar another (even pre-Ring). Haradrim are considered evil though that's probably just pro-Elvish propaganda.

  • Or, hell, even in hobbits. Ted Sandyman and Lotho Sackville-Baggins are seen as bad hobbits.

• We also see how the ring amplifies the natural negative qualities and behavior in everyone:

  • Humans: the lure of the Ring and its power affected Boromir vs. Faramir differently. Or Denethor (at a distance, natch) vs. Aragorn.

  • Even Wizards (Gandalf vs. Saruman, who wasn't even near the Ring)

• The Ring didn't cause other heroes to murder either - it was seen, aside from Bagginses, by everyone at Council of Elrond; by Galadriel; and Samwise Gamgee didn't seem affected at all, even less so than Frodo.

This isn't supported in canon, but your question makes an underlying assumption that ALL hobbits are 100% the same, which I feel is not a correct assumption.

In reality, hobbits are humans (from JRRT's "storytelling" point of view, not in-universe-biological one). And one thing we know about humans is that 1-3% of them are sociopaths/psychopaths, who would gladly kill a person for a pretty ring even without the ring being Sauron's One Ring.

So, it's just as plausible to explain Smeagol's behavior by his innate negative qualities, as it is by the Ring somehow acting very differently on him than Bagginses. This is reinforce by several different points form canon:

• We know that the other Rings amplified their wearers' attributes, e.g. Dwarves' greed... so it's possible The One ring amplified Smeagol's sociopathy.

  This was alluded to pretty explicitly by Tolkien himself. In a letter to Michael Sraight, Tolkien writes:

  The domination of the Ring was too much for the mean soul of Sméagol. But he would have never had to endure it if he had not been a mean sort of thief before it crossed his path

• We see the same existence of good/evil individual in Men in Tolkien, in general.

  Grima Wormtongue is one example. Witch-King of Angmar another (even pre-Ring). Haradrim are considered evil though that's probably just Pro-Elvish propaganda.

  • Or, hell, even in hobbits. Ted Sandyman and Lotho Sackville-Baggins are seen as bad hobbits.

• We ALSO see how the ring amplifies the natural negative qualities and behavior in everyone:

  • Humans: the lure of the Ring and its power affected Boromir vs. Faramir differently. Or Denethor (at a distance, natch) vs. Aragorn.

  • Even Wizards (Gandalf vs. Saruman, who wasn't even near the Ring)

• The Ring didn't cause other heroes to murder either - it was seen, aside from Bagginses, by everyone at Council of Elrond; by Galadriel; and Samwise Gamgee didn't seem affected at all, even less so than Frodo.

This isn't supported in canon, but your question makes an underlying assumption that ALL hobbits are 100% the same, which I feel is not a correct assumption.

In reality, hobbits are humans (from JRRT's "storytelling" point of view, not in-universe-biological one). And one thing we know about humans is that 1-3% of them are sociopaths/psychopaths, who would gladly kill a person for a pretty ring even without the ring being Sauron's One Ring.

So, it's just as plausible to explain Smeagol's behavior by his innate negative qualities, as it is by the Ring somehow acting very differently on him than on Bagginses. This is reinforced by several different points from canon:

• We know that the other Rings amplified their wearers' attributes, e.g. Dwarves' greed... so it's possible The One ring amplified Smeagol's sociopathy.

  This was alluded to pretty explicitly by Tolkien himself. In a letter to Michael Sraight, Tolkien writes:

  The domination of the Ring was too much for the mean soul of Sméagol. But he would have never had to endure it if he had not been a mean sort of thief before it crossed his path

• We see the same existence of good/evil individual in Men in Tolkien, in general.

  Grima Wormtongue is one example. Witch-King of Angmar another (even pre-Ring). Haradrim are considered evil though that's probably just Pro-Elvish propaganda.

  • Or, hell, even in hobbits. Ted Sandyman and Lotho Sackville-Baggins are seen as bad hobbits.

• We ALSO see how the ring amplifies the natural negative qualities and behavior in everyone:

  • Humans: the lure of the Ring and its power affected Boromir vs. Faramir differently. Or Denethor (at a distance, natch) vs. Aragorn.

  • Even Wizards (Gandalf vs. Saruman, who wasn't even near the Ring)

• The Ring didn't cause other heroes to murder either - it was seen, aside from Bagginses, by everyone at Council of Elrond; by Galadriel; and Samwise Gamgee didn't seem affected at all, even less so than Frodo.

This isn't supported in canon, but your question makes an underlying assumption that ALL hobbits are 100% the same, which I feel is not a correct assumption.

In reality, hobbits are humans (from JRRT's "storytelling" point of view, not in-universe-biological one). And one thing we know about humans is that 1-3% of them are sociopaths/psychopaths, who would gladly kill a person for a pretty ring even without the ring being Sauron's One Ring.

So, it's just as plausible to explain Smeagol's behavior by his innate negative qualities, as it is by the Ring somehow acting very differently on him than Bagginses. This is reinforce by several different points form canon:

• We know that the other Rings amplified their wearers' attributes, e.g. Dwarves' greed... so it's possible The One ring amplified Smeagol's sociopathy.

• We see the same existence of good/evil individual in Men in Tolkien, in general. Grima Wormtongue is one example. Witch-King of Angmar another (even pre-Ring). Haradrim are considered evil though that's probably just Pro-Elvish propaganda.

  • Or, hell, even in hobbits. Ted Sandyman and Lotho Sackville-Baggins are seen as bad hobbits.

• We ALSO see how the ring amplifies the natural negative qualities and behavior in everyone:

  • Humans: the lure of the Ring and its power affected Boromir vs. Faramir differently. Or Denethor (at a distance, natch) vs. Aragorn.

  • Even Wizards (Gandalf vs. Saruman, who wasn't even near the Ring)

• The Ring didn't cause other heroes to murder either - it was seen, aside from Bagginses, by everyone at Council of Elrond; by Galadriel; and Samwise Gamgee didn't seem affected at all, even less so than Frodo.

This isn't supported in canon, but your question makes an underlying assumption that ALL hobbits are 100% the same, which I feel is not a correct assumption.

In reality, hobbits are humans (from JRRT's "storytelling" point of view, not in-universe-biological one). And one thing we know about humans is that 1-3% of them are sociopaths/psychopaths, who would gladly kill a person for a pretty ring even without the ring being Sauron's One Ring.

So, it's just as plausible to explain Smeagol's behavior by his innate negative qualities, as it is by the Ring somehow acting very differently on him than Bagginses. This is reinforce by several different points form canon:

• We know that the other Rings amplified their wearers' attributes, e.g. Dwarves' greed... so it's possible The One ring amplified Smeagol's sociopathy.

  This was alluded to pretty explicitly by Tolkien himself. In a letter to Michael Sraight, Tolkien writes:

  The domination of the Ring was too much for the mean soul of Sméagol. But he would have never had to endure it if he had not been a mean sort of thief before it crossed his path

• We see the same existence of good/evil individual in Men in Tolkien, in general. 

  Grima Wormtongue is one example. Witch-King of Angmar another (even pre-Ring). Haradrim are considered evil though that's probably just Pro-Elvish propaganda.

  • Or, hell, even in hobbits. Ted Sandyman and Lotho Sackville-Baggins are seen as bad hobbits.

• We ALSO see how the ring amplifies the natural negative qualities and behavior in everyone:

  • Humans: the lure of the Ring and its power affected Boromir vs. Faramir differently. Or Denethor (at a distance, natch) vs. Aragorn.

  • Even Wizards (Gandalf vs. Saruman, who wasn't even near the Ring)

• The Ring didn't cause other heroes to murder either - it was seen, aside from Bagginses, by everyone at Council of Elrond; by Galadriel; and Samwise Gamgee didn't seem affected at all, even less so than Frodo.