system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
[Lord of The Rings] Would Sam have been a better ring-bearer than Frodo?

This is based off the movies. Haven’t read the books yet.

I’m doing a marathon of the trilogy right now and it seems like the ring doesn’t have much of an effect on Sam.

Would he have been a better ring-bearer? At first I figured he wasn’t effected much because he wasn’t wearing it like Frodo was but throughout the movies it shows that Boromir, Faramir, Gollum, Bilbo, and I think even Galadriel at one point tried to take the ring from Frodo.

Was Sam immune to the effects of the ring somehow?
gpt
Hobbits in general aren't very susceptible to the ring's effects because the ring works by promising you a lot of power to do whatever it is you want to do and hobbits aren't typically super ambitious or very powerful to start with. Gollum was only as corrupted as he was because he had the ring for centuries. Also, it was by and large safe in Gollum's possession. He didn't really do much with it. Bilbo was a similar case. He lacked ambition and didn't do much with the ring. He was able to actually give it up eventually, and he attacked Frodo after the ring had been wearing him down for decades. In the books, Frodo had the ring for 17 years before embarking to Rivendell.

So Sam would probably be about as good a ring-bearer as Frodo, maybe slightly better. (I think the ring might have tempted Sam with the ability to turn all of Middle Earth into a garden or something like that?) On the other hand, Sam seemed to me to have a more proactive personality than Frodo did so maybe he'd be a little worse. 

But Tolkien was a Catholic and according to the Christian understanding, people can't defeat evil on their own initiative, only divine intervention can help. So nobody could really decide to cast the ring into Mount Doom by themselves. There *had* to be a "coincidence" (wink wink) that meant the ring fell in.