[Fingolfin II]

Aiwendil wrote:

For Tolkien, the person or thing by which you swear an oath is of critical importance. Remember that Feanor's oath was sworn in the name of Iluvatar.

That is very true. In all the cases of when an oath is sworn in Middle-Earth, the effect has been that either the oath-swearer has fulfilled their oath (i.e. Beren, Finrod, Sam, etc.) or have died trying- for example, the sons of Feanor.

In the case that an oath has been broken, there has usually been retribution for the oath-breaker; the examples I can think of are Gollum falling into Mount Doom, the sons of Ulfang being slain after their treachery in the Battle of Unnumbered Tears and the Dead Men of Dunharrow becoming like that because they didn't fulfill their oath to fight for Isildur.

Fordim wrote:

So, apparently, blindly following an oath, or making one that cannot be broken (like the Nazgul) is problematic at best, evil at worst.

When we think of oaths in this way, it must be taken into consideration why the oath was made in the first place- was it made for a good reason or a bad one? Certainly Sam's 'oath' was made in good faith and for the right reasons, but Feanor's oath was made not to protect and help others, but to regain what was stolen for him and also to avenge his father, to an extent. However, Sam's oath to follow Frodo wherever he went turned out in the end, to have been a key part of the story- without that oath, Sam probably would have left Frodo and the Quest would have failed. Note that out of the Fellowship, he was the only one who swore to follow Frodo wherever he went. Hence his torment in Cirith Ungol is not only because he thinks is master is dead, but now that he is gone, Sam is at a loss for what to do.

'Faithless is he that says farewell when the road darkens,' said Gimli.

Maybe,' said Elrond, 'but let him not vow to walk in the dark who has not seen the nightfall.'

'Yet sworn word may strengthen the quaking heart,' said Gimli.

'Or break it,' said Elrond.

That's a great quote davem and it shows how your idea that breaking an oath is very costly- in your example, Eowyn is used to illustrate this. I think that this reinforces my idea that making oaths for the 'right' reasons is usually beneficial - as it was in Beren and Finrod's case - and doesn't torment the oath-maker or the people he/she loves as much as those that are made for the 'wrong' reasons: i.e. Feanor swearing by Illuvatar and causing the woes of the Noldor afterwards by trying to fulfill it.

However, I concede that oaths made for the 'right' reasons can still lead to a bad end- consider Gorlim's betrayal of Barahir and his band. In every case of oath-breaking we see that it is always out of the desire for something- in Gorlim's case it is his desire to see his wife, for Gollum it is lust for the Ring and for the Easterlings who betrayed Caranthir it is a desire for power.

We have seen that an oath-maker must either fulfill their oath, die trying to fulfill it, or break it and suffer the torment. Frodo has sworn to destroy the Ring and he must do that or else die trying. So while oaths may be a good thing, following them blindly (as Fordim said), does lead to problems and certainly in Feanor's case, estrangement and evil.