In The Fellowship of the Ring, after Boromir is blinded by the greed of Men and tries attacking Frodo for the Ring, Aragorn finds Frodo and tells him to keep the Ring, saying he'd follow Frodo into the fires of Mount Doom.

Why? Why do Aragorn, Legolas, and Gimli (and sometimes Boromir) have this sudden, deep care for a Hobbit they've just met? Is it just because Frodo is tasked with saving Middle-earth by destroying the Ring?

(I know why Gandalf, Sam, Merry, and Pippin care for him, since they're friends, etc.)

  • 24
    " Is it just because Frodo is tasked with saving Middle-earth by destroying the Ring?" to be fair that's a pretty compelling reason.
    – djechlin
    Aug 31 '14 at 12:41

After Boromir is blinded by the greed of Men and tries attacking Frodo for the Ring, Aragorn finds Frodo and tells him to keep the Ring, saying he'll follow Frodo into the fires of Mount Doom.

This scene doesn't happen in the book; it's an invention of Jackson & co.

To be more precise: the scene with Boromir does happen, but Frodo gets clean away without meeting Aragorn (or anyone else).

There is no "sudden deep care" in the book. The companions are for the most part chosen (rather than volunteering, as in the movies) and they actually have no compulsion to follow Frodo to Mount Doom. In fact it says of Legolas and Gimli:

They are willing to go at least to the passes of the Mountains, and maybe beyond.

But on the other hand, of Aragorn and Boromir:

'I would have begged you to come,' said Frodo, 'only I thought you were going to Minas Tirith with Boromir.'

'I am,' said Aragorn. 'And the Sword-that-was-Broken shall be reforged ere I set out to war. But your road and our road lie together for many hundreds of miles. Therefore Boromir will also be in the Company. He is a valiant man.'

Therefore of those who set out on the quest, we have the following breakdown:

  • Aragorn: going to Minas Tirith.
  • Boromir: going to Minas Tirith.
  • Legolas: going at least as far as the passes of the mountains.
  • Gimli: going at least as far as the passes of the mountains.
  • Frodo: going to Mount Doom.
  • Sam: (presumably) going to Mount Doom.
  • Merry: unknown.
  • Pippin: unknown.
  • Gandalf: unknown.

Aside from all of that, the company were journeying together for some time, endured dangers together, and so it's only natural that a friendship built up between them. We see the same in the friendship between Legolas and Gimli.

  • 8
    This has just reminded me how nasty Elrond was in the movie vs how nice he was in the book. The movie Elrond didn't even reforge the sword that was broken before they left. Then dragged his daughter (he'd promised to let Aragorn wed ) away right in the middle of the big showdown with Mordor. Sep 1 '14 at 9:07
  • 4
    So... they were going to leave him alone just when he was about the most dangerous part of the journey, and in a place where, had he failed, Sauron would have recovered the ring immediately? Seems like the complete opposite of a good plan...
    – SJuan76
    Sep 1 '14 at 13:57
  • 1
    @SJuan76 - I'm not sure where you get that idea from and I suggest that you re-read the Departure of Boromir to set you right.
    – user8719
    Sep 1 '14 at 16:07
  • 11
    @SJuan76 Small groups are good at sneaking. Even better when the group is literally small, as Hobbits are. Elves and men would stick out like sore thumbs, but as we saw, two Hobbits didn't even get noticed until they were standing inside Mt. Doom itself, and one of them had to be corrupted by the ring and declare mastery over it first.
    – Zibbobz
    Oct 22 '14 at 15:24

In the movie universe and in life in general, having shared adventures and perils brings you closer to people. But basically the whole fate of the world is in the Hobbit's hand — this was the major reason.

Most of them also realized the burden he was carrying tand that none of them could do it. Legolas and Aragorn especially were keen to the power of the ring. Even Boromir before leaving said he wouldn't want to do it but was forced by his father.

They cared for the fate of the ring, and since it was inherently tied to Frodo, they cared for him as well. Faramir had a similar moment when he saw what the ring was doing to Frodo. No one wants that weight upon them, and they all respect and care for Frodo for being able to do it.


For one thing, you can't say that Aragorn and Frodo had just met. They met in Bree in late September and the sundering of the Fellowship was in February. Aragorn had led them against the Black Riders, seen Frodo wounded and almost killed twice, and had had plenty of time to gain a liking for the Hobbit.


To speak for Aragorn and Gandalf, there is no 'sudden' care for Frodo and/or the other Hobbits. The care of the elders for the Hobbits, including Elrond for example, is a care for that what the Hobbits stand for in LOTR.

It is a care just like most of us feel for kids, for all that we take for 'good', 'innocent', 'undepraved', 'ingenuous' and 'unseducable' and even for being 'naive' and 'helpless'. The Hobbits have been living uninvolved in and undisturbed by the great struggle of good and evil in middle-earth for centuries. They would not have a chance of surviving any war, having no interest in fighting, weapons or enslaving or spoiling blood of others.

Now they were suddenly placed in the role of saviours, the most unlikely - but most credible - creatures for such a job. Perhaps it is this state of long-term uninvolvedness that gives a strong sense and depth to Frodo's - a Hobbit's - destiny to save middle earth.

And this all are the main reasons to care about him. They love him not only as friends, they love him for taking the burden of the ring, an they love him for being 'only' an innocent but brave Halfling.


The Fellowship cares about the fate of Middle-Earth. That fate is determined by the Ring Bearer. This was clearly stated and the central theme at the Council of Elrond.

Whether they initially had feelings about each other is immaterial. The Free Peoples of Middle-Earth, i.e., the good guys, have volunteered to aid Frodo. They are valiant heroes and the best of souls.

That they became close is inevitable when those of noble heart share such a burden and repeatedly risk their lives for each other. We see this among military personnel all the time. Initial goals or promises gave way to deep feelings of brotherhood.

I see nothing odd in the character development. In fact, compassion for Frodo (Halflings in general) seems rather inevitable. It doesn't hurt that they are so small and seemingly weak (at first glance).


I'd just like to add to all the other wonderful answers. We have to consider that the people involved in the Fellowship are very "high born".

The Fellowship consists of

  • a Wizard
  • a (future) High King
  • an Elven Prince
  • a descendent of Durin the Deathless
  • a future Steward of Gondor
  • a descendant of the Shire Thain
  • a future Master of Buckland.

Frodo should be considered as Hobbit gentry - he is high born relative to his people, and Sam is his devoted servant. The only one who isn't of relative "high" birth is Sam, yet he arguably is the most devoted of the entire Fellowship, although I think for reasons slightly different than the others.

Being that these members of the Fellowship are of such high birth, it doesn't seem odd that they would be so supportive to the cause of the ring-bearer and the cause of Middle Earth. Aragorn, being raised partially in Imladris, knows this history of his people and much of Middle Earth. He knows of Morgoth, of Sauron, and the evils they have wrought upon Arda. Therefore it is in his best interest to support the ring-bearer and, if I might put forth some supposition, views Frodo to be of high honor for his self sacrifice for the greater good. Consider what Frodo did when he learned of the danger to the Shire and the world at large : he sold his beloved estate and set off, seemingly alone, into parts unknown. While Frodo hoped to only need take the ring to Imladris, part of him knew that it wouldn't stop there, and he went anyway. That deserves some respect, and Aragorn, being educated and learned in history and honor due to his lineage, knows this - I believe he even remarks on Frodos courage several times (I will find the appropriate quotes when I can get to my book). Continuing my supposition, I would say most of the Fellowships knows this at the beginning, or figures it out pretty quickly.

This doesn't bring into account the friendship that develops between the Fellowship and just how strong that bond is.


There is also an overwhelming sense in through the whole series about the special characteristics of a hobbit. Gandalf is attracted to them because they are small and light on their feet, which makes them good burglars... and excellent ring smugglers. He soon notices that they have even more desirable characteristics for the grand play against Sauron. They are the simplest, least worldly beings in Middle-Earth. They care not for power and acquisition of wealth, they lead simple lives in small communities and don't concern themselves much if at all about the outside, big people's world. They are typically simple, weak, and do not stray from the shire (well, maybe they party in Bree sometimes). Frodo and Bilbo share a certain quirk that makes them most adventurous among all other hobbits, and because of the unique community aspect and loyalty of hobbits Merry and Pippin go along. Because of this the ring has the least corrupting influence on hobbits among all creatures that could carry it. It was a bit of destiny that Bilbo found it, but Gandalf realized that only these beings would have a chance at resisting the sway of the ring.

So why, because of luck, unique cultural and physical characteristics, and Gandalf being able to see through the muck when no one else could.


Frodo is the ultimate anti-hero. He did not ask for his fate, he had it thrust upon him (Tolkien has repeatedly indicated that the simple courage of the Hobbits is equivalent to the simple courage of the British people - steadfast anti-heroes, made heroic by resolve rather than ambition.

Beyond not asking for his part in this story, Frodo is also a pacifist in a violent swirl of events. This is especially obvious at the end of the book (as well as how frequently he drops his unused sword in the movie - nice read, peter jackson), when the shire is re-taken (mostly Merry's leadership). Frodo is not a brave warrior seeking adventure, he is like most of us, an everyday man who would rather have a beer and answer letters...but when forced into extraordinary circumstances, he responds extraordinarily. Personally, my favorite character in the book was Samwise....he defines loyalty, steadiness, and lack of ego...very British

  • 2
    I don't think Frodo is anti-heroic. Although he's quite self-effacing, he certainly doesn't lack traditionally heroic qualities like courage, idealism or morality.
    – Valorum
    Oct 4 '14 at 10:23
  • no, he certainly has all those qualities, i guess what i was trying to say is that he lacks the traditional "action hero posture"... he is small, tentative, shies away from praise, would "rather not be there" (he would rather be sharing an ale with friends at the green dragon) and is a pacifist in a violent world.
    – Ron Meyers
    Oct 4 '14 at 10:45
  • 3
    Arguably his lack of heroic stature and reluctance makes his future actions more, not less heroic. It's quite easy to be a hero when you're 6'4'' and trained from birth.
    – Valorum
    Oct 4 '14 at 11:02
  • 5
    "unlikely hero" is a much better turn of phrase.
    – Valorum
    Oct 13 '14 at 9:48
  • 1
    Frodo does seek adventure. "Frodo began to feel restless, and the old paths seemed too well-trodden. He looked at maps and wondered what lay beyond their edges..." To paraphrase: Frodo begins to yearn for adventure but always tells himself "not yet". When the day comes he is, as others have mentioned, self-effacing, but entirely willing. - LoTR, Fellowship of the Ring Feb 10 '17 at 19:51

Your Answer

