[Boromir88]

The implication in the passage is that NOTHING could come to pass, had Eru not permitted it.~Formendacil

But would Eddings' definition fit within LOTR? Afterall, how much of a presense does Eru have in LOTR? There are vague hints of other powers working behind the scenes, but the decision to carry the Ring and the strength to carry it to Mount Doom was Frodo's, not Eru's.

And whether Eru intervened in Mount Doom is questionable, even if you agree with Tolkien saying in various letters about Eru's intervention, Letters muddy thing up. You can't tell from the LOTR text whether Eru caused Gollum's fall, or whether Sauron was defeated by 'good,' due to...well a lucky slip.

The way good and evil is presented in LOTR, I think one can find Eddings' definition. The defeat of evil rested on the destruction of the Ring, it was presented as an impossible, and perhas idiotic gamble by the good guys. So, Sauron certainly had a great chance, maybe even better chance, of 'winning.' And Sauron was defeated, because of his pride, his belief that no one had the strength of will to destroy the Ring - and he never bothered worrying about the Ring's destuction.

Boromir regarding the Ring, Denethor towards Gandalf and even Rohan

Yes, but are all the guys who fight against Sauron necessarily good? Saruman opposed Sauron, he was by Tolkien's definition - evil. Tolkien also laid down the law regarding Boromir and Denethor's downfall. As Tolkien would write to Christopher about WWII:

For we are attempting to conquer Sauron with the Ring. And we shall (it seems) succeed.But the penalty is, as you will know, to breed new Saurons, and slowly turn men and elves into Orcs. Not that in real life things are so clear cut as in a story, and we started out with a great many Orcs on our side...~Letter 66

The same can be applied to LOTR, just because we can identify Gondor as the "good side," does not mean they do not have their own bad apples. Denethor's and Boromir's downfalls were due to the same thing as Sauron's...pride.

however, that in a sense this could be argued as not true for Tolkien at all--the "good guys" really don't get along at all:

But there is still a sense of aid and community amongst the good guys that we do not see in Evil. Rohan still rides to Gondor's defense. Erebor and Dale join forces in fighting off Sauron. But it is perhaps the individual examples which lead a stronger credence to Eddings' definition. Perhaps Tolkien was trying to set an example through individual examples and not by general relations amongst races (such as Elves and Dwarves).

Elrond and Galadriel both lend aid to Aragorn throughout LOTR, as well as the rest of the Fellowship. Sam's enduring friendship and sacrifice gets Frodo into Mount Doom. Gandalf's sacrifice in Moria insures the quest still has a chance. Faramir, not being tempted by the Ring, and letting Frodo go. Gimli and Legolas' growing friendship throughout the story. There is a lot of "community" throughout LOTR, maybe not on the "global" level, but on a character-to-character level there is.

Edit: crossed with Nog and Form