# Forum > Comics > The Order of the Stick >  Is the sunk cost fallacy always a fallacy?

## BaronOfHell

The Red Cloak suffers from sunk cost fallacy, meaning it cannot disregard previously invested resources when taking future actions into consideration.

In the case of the goblin puppet master, it means anything that is not _the plan_, is not an option.. at least not if it goes against the plan. I suppose mentally, his conscience just wouldn't be able to bear it.

I believe the story truly does portray a fallacy, because there seems to have been many better options RC could have chosen than to follow the plan.
Like... until the secret mercenaries of Shojo (no not the boys in blue, except one of those did so too) began blowing up Gates like there is no tomorrow, RC's time did seem pretty unlimited. Xykon didn't have to be the be all end all, but I suppose now he can't ditch the lich anymore, or he might as well give up his life and the plan altogether.

Anyway what I wonder is if sunk cost doesn't have a value if you do have limited time? A scenario where you invest resources for some gain, and based on what you get, you make your next decision. The alternative of ignoring whatever you got seems unlikely to be better?

Here is an example. In a game of chess you have 2.5 hours to finish a game, so does your opponent, so in total of 5 hours. The game may be 50 moves long, that means each player makes 50 moves for a total of 100 moves... 5 hours for a 100 moves may sound like a lot, but you actually only have 3 minutes per move in average.
With sound time investment, a large part of the moves does not require 3 minutes, but even if we eliminate half the moves it still leaves out 6 minutes per move.
Now I won't go into chess terminology, but imagine you have a position that requires you to think a lot.. So far you have invested your time well, so you can afford at least 30 minutes to consider your options, but then you get absorbed in a specific line of moves for the majority of the duration and now you really cannot spend any more time considering the position. Yet all you have for the time spend is a very deep understanding of one move and the variations which follows, and a very shallow understanding of perhaps two other moves.
You have realized that the move you spend the most time on will give you a position from which you have to fight for a draw if your opponent plays correctly, and you also know there are many ways your opponent can go wrong (perhaps the very reason you were lured to spend so much time on this particular move). However, presently, you see nothing wrong with one of the other moves you considered, and the third you decided to disregard completely, as it doesn't seem to be any good. Also you just discovered a fourth move that you haven't really looked at, but at first glance it does look like a forced win for you, or close to at least.

So what do you do? Please have in mind all moves are supposed to be very complicated, so you cannot be very confident in any other move than the one move you don't think is very good if your opponent plays well against it.

In my opinion the resources spend, is what should determine the outcome. In the chess example, if you know little to almost nothing of other candidate moves than the one you spend so much time on, isn't it a much larger risk to go for any other move then?
Sometimes people play dubious openings in chess knowing they can be punished, but have so much preparation in hand, that it is unlikely to happen based on their current opponent. If this is a valid strategy, is it not also better to go for where your resources went, than to invest in avenues you haven't explored properly, even though at first sight they look so much more promising?

----------


## Kish

Calling a person "The [name split in two]" and "it" is almost always two fallacies.

----------


## WanderingMist

Considering that "sunk cost fallacy" includes "fallacy" in its name, yes, it is always a fallacy.

Definition from Wikipedia:

People demonstrate "a greater tendency to continue an endeavor once an investment in money, effort, or time has been made." This is the sunk cost fallacy, and such behavior may be described as "throwing good money after bad", while refusing to succumb to what may be described as "cutting one's losses".

The whole point is you would be better off if you stopped at any point and the longer you continue, the higher the cost will grow.

----------


## hroþila

The sunk cost fallacy involves sticking with the worse option because you've already invested resources in it. If there truly are no better alternatives than continuing the Plan in its current form (i.e. working with Xykon), then there's no sunk cost fallacy, just a rational assessment of possibilities. What you are describing isn't a sunk cost fallacy, they're just gambles and calculated risks.

----------


## Fyraltari

> Calling a person "The [name split in two]" and "it" is almost always two fallacies.


And yet, according to Vortigaunts the Free Man shows his excellence in all things.

----------


## BaronOfHell

> The sunk cost fallacy involves sticking with the worse option because you've already invested resources in it. If there truly are no better alternatives than continuing the Plan in its current form (i.e. working with Xykon), then there's no sunk cost fallacy, just a rational assessment of possibilities. What you are describing isn't a sunk cost fallacy, they're just gambles and calculated risks.


Well doesn't the sunk cost situation often develop because at one point something which either seemed like a good idea or went well, slowly became worse, yet you kept disregarding other alternatives which may or may not have been better, because you already had invested so much into this one thing?

In the example I tried to make, this is a point where you have to either go with your investment or try for something else. In the case of the sunk cost fallacy a person would keep going for their investment, and I tried to think of a situation where that could be a rational decision.
Is it not a possible for it to be the right decision to continue to follow up with previous bad decisions, simply because of what it has gained you so far compared to what other alternatives may provide?

----------


## Jasdoif

> In the example I tried to make, this is a point where you have to either go with your investment or try for something else. In the case of the sunk cost fallacy a person would keep going for their investment, and I tried to think of a situation where that could be a rational decision.
> Is it not a possible for it to be the right decision to continue to follow up with previous bad decisions, simply because of what it has gained you so far compared to what other alternatives may provide?


The sunk cost fallacy is, at its core, making decisions based on how much you've invested already that you can't recover, instead of how likely the decisions are to actually _accomplish_ what they're meant for...that is, ignoring the circumstances of a decision you're making in favor of decisions you've already made, no matter how different the circumstances have gotten.

The impact of your earlier decisions is already reflected in the circumstances of the decision you're making; if doubling down is the most logical option, then that choice is the most logical option *regardless* of how much you've specifically invested in it already.

----------


## A.A.King

It's also important to keep in mind that just because that your logic was based on a fallacy that you didn't still stumble upon the right conclusion. You can be right for the wrong reasons.

Sometimes it can be best to keep going the way you are already going, but if you decide not to go for a different strategy _just_ because you already started doing it a certain way and to change strategies would feel like a fast of effort already put in that would still be considered the Sunk Cost Fallacy. A fallacy is bad logic and while bad logic often is followed by a bad conclusion it isn't a guarantee for it.

----------


## BloodSquirrel

Yes, it is always a fallacy, because the way it is formally defined is that it means that it involves picking the worse option.

It doesn't just mean taking already invested resources into account- in some cases, those resources will mean that one of your available options is better than if you hadn't invested those resources into it. You can think of three simple cases:

You need a new computer. You spend $500 on a motherboard and graphics card (which you can't re-sell for some reason). The rest of the components will cost you another $1000. You then see that there is a pre-built computer for sale with the exact components that you wanted.

Case 1: The pre-built computer costs $1600. Building your own is still cheaper no matter what.
Case 2: The pre-built computer costs $1400. It would have been cheaper to buy the pre-built computer from the start, but the current cost to finish your self-built computer is only $1000. You would be better off finishing your self-built computer.
Case 3: The pre-built computer costs $900, which is less than the components you would need to finish your self-built computer. You would be better off buying the pre-built computer, even if it means completely wasting the motherboard and graphics card that you already bought. 

Neither case 1 (for obvious reasons) nor case 2 would qualify as a sunken cost fallacy if you decided to continue building your own computer. In case 2, it's still the cheapest option, even if that's only because you made a non-optimal decision in the first place.

A sunken cost fallacy, by definition, means that you are irrationally treating that $500 as if it will have only been "really wasted" if you buy the $900 computer, leading you to waste another $100 that you don't have to. In case #2, you aren't doing that. You're looking purely at the costs moving forward- $1000 versus $1400- and picking what is still the best option, even if it means that you wasted $100 overall.

EDIT: I'll note that, in the real business world, "We know that thing really well and have built our systems around it" is a perfectly good reason not to jump from new tech to new tech as soon as they pop up, even if the new tech is strictly better. I work in the electric power industry, and we are an _extremely_ conservative bunch in that regard, because the cost of making mistakes is very high, while the benefit from new tech or design improvements is usually marginal. We've invested a lot of time and energy in vetting the most critical pieces of equipment we buy, and things like "lab testing", "training our technicians to work with new equipment", "redesigning our standards", and "finding out what flaws/quirks/workarounds the new equipment has/requires" are very real costs that we take very, very seriously.

----------


## brian 333

I agree with those saying that for a sunk cost fallacy to exist, there must be a fallacy.

A better option can be less costly to implement without rendering the first option a fallacy. For it to be a fallacy it must be something which will not work in the first place.

Redcloak and TDO's Plan is a fallacy because it has several points of failure which are known to Redcloak, and yet he keeps investing in it because of his previous investments. He handwaves away the likelihood of failure, even when presented with a winning option, because he cannot admit his original investment was a bad decision.

"It will all be worth it. You'll see."

----------


## TaiLiu

As others have said: yes, by definition. You're right, though, that it may be the case that a decision that you've sunk the most resources into may be the best decision.

One difficulty with the sunk cost fallacy is that it's an informal fallacy, and informal fallacies have a tendency to be used without a serious understanding of what they are. (To the point where I'd say the informal fallacies are more harmful than useful.) Notably, people notice that an argument contains an aspect of an informal fallacy and then they decide that the whole argument must be wrong. As you point out, that's silly.

----------


## halfeye

> The Red Cloak suffers from sunk cost fallacy, meaning it cannot disregard previously invested resources when taking future actions into consideration.


The cloak is an item that the goblin called Red Cloak wears, it makes very few decisions.




> And yet, according to Vortigaunts the Free Man shows his excellence in all things.


That's a translation problem.




> Yes, it is always a fallacy, because the way it is formally defined is that it means that it involves picking the worse option.
> 
> It doesn't just mean taking already invested resources into account- in some cases, those resources will mean that one of your available options is better than if you hadn't invested those resources into it. You can think of three simple cases:
> 
> You need a new computer. You spend $500 on a motherboard and graphics card (which you can't re-sell for some reason). The rest of the components will cost you another $1000. You then see that there is a pre-built computer for sale with the exact components that you wanted.
> 
> Case 1: The pre-built computer costs $1600. Building your own is still cheaper no matter what.
> Case 2: The pre-built computer costs $1400. It would have been cheaper to buy the pre-built computer from the start, but the current cost to finish your self-built computer is only $1000. You would be better off finishing your self-built computer.
> Case 3: The pre-built computer costs $900, which is less than the components you would need to finish your self-built computer. You would be better off buying the pre-built computer, even if it means completely wasting the motherboard and graphics card that you already bought. 
> ...


The motherboard may be a sunk cost, but a graphics card can be reused in any new build. If the graphics card is so cheap that it can be beaten by the one in a £900 factory build, you were seriously robbed on the motherboard, IMO.

----------


## BloodSquirrel

> The motherboard may be a sunk cost, but a graphics card can be reused in any new build. If the graphics card is so cheap that it can be beaten by the one in a £900 factory build, you were seriously robbed on the motherboard, IMO.


I stipulated "can't be re-sold for some reason" because it makes the example less complicated. Picking realistic numbers and taking into account all possible alternative courses of action usually works directly against the goal of _providing a simple and clear scenario to demonstrate the principle._

Otherwise, you'd just be comparing the cost of the pre-built against the cost of the new components plus whatever you could sell the motherboard and graphics card for.

----------


## Murk

Also, fallacies relate to logic and reason. The sunken cost fallacy is by definition a fallacy, but that doesn't necessarily apply to feelings or emotions. Just because something isn't logically sound doesn't mean it doesn't have emotional value. 

That's the danger of fallacies, after all. 

There are plenty of situations in which the sunken cost fallacy is indeed a fallacy, and rationally not a sound argument, but emotionally a good argument. 
I use it a lot when I'm playing strategy games. If you find out halfway through the game that your strategy wasn't sound, the _best_ course of action would be to change your strategy. But often it's more fun to stick with your original strategy and try to salvage it. Not because it's the best thing to do, but because seeing your plans come to completion can be more fun than changing plans halfway through. 

Similarly, Redcloak's emotional assessment that the plan failing is a better outcome than having to admit it was a stupid plan is... logically maybe not sound, but emotionally it certainly is. Maybe Goblins _would_ prefer to die for a hopeless cause rather than admit all previous deaths were in vain. That's not an uncommon sentiment. 

So yeah, by definition it's always a fallacy. But just because it's a fallacy doesn't mean it's always _wrong_.

----------


## halfeye

> I stipulated "can't be re-sold for some reason" because it makes the example less complicated. Picking realistic numbers and taking into account all possible alternative courses of action usually works directly against the goal of _providing a simple and clear scenario to demonstrate the principle._
> 
> Otherwise, you'd just be comparing the cost of the pre-built against the cost of the new components plus whatever you could sell the motherboard and graphics card for.


Who resells graphics cards? You can replace the graphics card in the £900 computer, unless you can't, in which case it's very probably very dire indeed.

----------


## Jasdoif

> There are plenty of situations in which the sunken cost fallacy is indeed a fallacy, and rationally not a sound argument, but emotionally a good argument. 
> I use it a lot when I'm playing strategy games. If you find out halfway through the game that your strategy wasn't sound, the _best_ course of action would be to change your strategy. But often it's more fun to stick with your original strategy and try to salvage it. Not because it's the best thing to do, but because seeing your plans come to completion can be more fun than changing plans halfway through.


I think that's more about identifying goals; "have fun" is an entirely viable goal for decision making to accomplish, and as you've noted that can diverge from "win the game".

----------


## Murk

> I think that's more about identifying goals; "have fun" is an entirely viable goal for decision making to accomplish, and as you've noted that can diverge from "win the game".


Well, yes - and that's something _fallacies_ don't always take into account. Because the same can apply to Redcloak: maybe his sense of shame, or honor, or image is more important than winning the game. 
He's still knee-deep in a sunken cost fallacy, but a logical fallacy can emotionally still be the "better" choice.

----------


## Jasdoif

> Well, yes - and that's something _fallacies_ don't always take into account. Because the same can apply to Redcloak: maybe his sense of shame, or honor, or image is more important than winning the game. 
> He's still knee-deep in a sunken cost fallacy, but a logical fallacy can emotionally still be the "better" choice.


The thing is that Redcloak claims, and likely believes, "winning the game" is still the most important thing.  The applicability of a fallacy would mean that doesn't logically follow: either he's acting counterproductively towards his goal, or his goal isn't what he says it is.

----------


## MoiMagnus

> In my opinion the resources spend, is what should determine the outcome. In the chess example, if you know little to almost nothing of other candidate moves than the one you spend so much time on, isn't it a much larger risk to go for any other move then?


No, but somewhat yes in some circumstances.

No, because what matters is the *cost of changing of plan*. If the cost of changing your plan is greater than what changing your plan grants you, you should keep your old plan.

Somewhat yes because this cost is _often_ similar (if not equal) to the amount of resource spent: all the preparatory work you did for the old plan, chances that you'll need to do them again for the new plan, etc. For example in Chess, you'll need to foolproof your new plan by making sure that you've not missed any trick from your opponent, while you've already did this work for your old plan.

However often is _not always_. Changing to the new plan can be pretty cheap. Taking Chess again, imagine that you had your long plan that required a lot of sacrifice, but at some point, you realise that instead of continuing your plan, you can do a simple move and end up in a situation that you studied the day before with your teacher and a computer, and realise that this situation is much better than your current plan. It doesn't matter what you sacrificed for your old plan, the new plan is something that put you in a much better situation, both in term of situation and in term of time remaining (because you've already studied this position in detail the day prior).

----------


## BloodSquirrel

> Who resells graphics cards?


Have you not checked the news at all in the last 3 years?

----------


## BloodSquirrel

> The thing is that Redcloak claims, and likely believes, "winning the game" is still the most important thing.  The applicability of a fallacy would mean that doesn't logically follow: either he's acting counterproductively towards his goal, or his goal isn't what he says it is.


The problem with this logic is that Redcloak's emotional investment in the sunken costs is affecting his judgment regarding that the most important thing is. If The Plan isn't the right path forward, then he's wasted his life (and a lot of other lives). He can't admit that possibility, so he starts with the conclusion that The Plan must go on, and reasons backwards from there.

He's smart enough that he'll always be able to come up with an ostensive logical justification for continuing, but that logic is and will be increasingly tortured as the situation deteriorates.




> If you find out halfway through the game that your strategy wasn't sound, the _best_ course of action would be to change your strategy.


This is not correct. It may turn out, for example, that invading province A was a worse choice than invading province B, but the cost in time and resources of moving your troops from province A to province B may still be worse than continuing in province A. It only  becomes a fallacy when continuing to pour resources into province A is a worse choice than retreating, but you continue to fight in province A because you've already lost a bunch of units fighting there and if you withdraw now their sacrifice will be meaningless!

----------


## gbaji

I think that, objectively, a sunk cost fallacy is a fallacy if it's a fallacy. Which, yeah, is a somewhat meaningless statement. It's always going to be based on an external observers _subjective_ analysis of the decision making process and declaring it fallacious or not. There are quite a number of cases where an observer might insist something is a sunk cost fallacy when it is actually not, however. In fact, there are a number of actions you absolutely should not take (pulling money out of an investment during the low point in an economic downturn for example), that can hurt you if you take action in the opposite direction when you shouldn't. Other cases (series of actions/investments via a scam say), where the entire "scam" rests on getting the mark to commit to it in some way which makes it difficult to admit they are being taken, so they keep putting more and more into it in the vain hope that "it'll be worth it in the end", when it should be incredibly obvious that it wont.

I think in the case of Redcloak, it's abundantly clear that he is operating on a sunk cost methodology. So while it's possible for actions to be incorrectly labeled as sunk cost fallacies, I don't think this is one of them. There's just been too many clear statements made in the comic detailing his actions and decisions and *why* he's doing those things that fit very clearly into sunk cost for it to be anything else. That doesn't mean that "the plan" is wrong (well, we know it is and why, but he doesn't believe it). But his thinking and rationale is absolutely about putting the previous cost spent ahead of any assessment of the success/reward of the actions he's taking today.

----------


## BloodSquirrel

> In fact, there are a number of actions you absolutely should not take (pulling money out of an investment during the low point in an economic downturn for example),


This is also not correct. An investment that has gone down in value may or may not be worth continuing to hold. If a stock is down 50%, and another stock is down 75%, and you have good reason to believe both will recover to their previous value, selling the first stock to buy the second is the correct choice.

The only reason how much a stock has fallen in value should matter to your current decision making is in how much it can be considered an indicator of whether it is currently undervalued or not. If you think it has only fallen because of people panic selling, holding might be the better choice (dependent on other available alternatives). If you think that new information has come out that suggests that it was never worth it's original value in the first place, selling may be the correct action.

----------


## skim172

"Sunk cost fallacy" describes the error in logic that leads to a decision. it does not describe the decision itself.

In your example, the decision to pursue a prepared chess strategy which may be less advantageous is not a sunk cost fallacy. If your reasoning was "Because I spent so much time preparing - if I didn't use that strategy, then all that time was a waste!", then that logic is sunk cost fallacy. 

If, however, your reasoning was, "Because I am better prepared to pursue this strategy than to switch now to a new strategy I am not prepared for," then that is not sunk cost fallacy. 


Here's a simpler example: You have a major paper due for school. But just the day before it's due, only then do you realize that you were supposed to write about "War and Peace" by Tolstoy - and not the "Barbie Fairy Princess Picture Book Collection for Small and Illiterate Children". 

But you decide to go ahead and present your report anyway because ...
 ... there's no way you can read War and Peace in that time. This way, at least you'll have something. ... you really, _really_ like Barbie Fairy Princess. Even if it costs you, you can't bear to part with it now. ... you truly believe that your teacher and classmates will be impressed by your tight prose, your cutting insight, and your revolutionary thesis that the "Barbie Fairy Princess" is an allegorical representation of the prehistoric Mother Goddess. ... you spent 9 months reading and analyzing "BFPPBCSIC", dammit, and if you abandoned it now, then those 9 months would be a waste of time. You're going to give your presentation, in its entirety - and nobody better _think_ about leaving their seats until all three hours of this Ph.D dissertation are completed.

The last is the sunk cost fallacy. The others - though they lead you to the same decision - are not. They may or may not be good reasons - but they're not sunk cost fallacy.

----------


## gbaji

> This is also not correct. An investment that has gone down in value may or may not be worth continuing to hold. If a stock is down 50%, and another stock is down 75%, and you have good reason to believe both will recover to their previous value, selling the first stock to buy the second is the correct choice.


Sure. Was trying to avoid getting too far into specifics and cases. I was addressing the innate, almost knee jerk response of "OMG! My portfolio has lost 80% of its value. I must sell now!", which tends to grip many people. During the 2008 market crash, a billionaire was asked how it felt to have lost so much money. His response: "I haven't lost a penny". Losses aren't "real" until/unless you sell.

I guess my point isn't that you couldn't improve your gain from the current point by making adjustments, but simply abandoning "the plan" (investments in general) is not the correct course of action. The sunk cost fallacy would say that maintaining the investment would be the wrong choice because you'll just lose more of what you've already lost, but that's rarely the case in a general market downturn. Obviously, this is *not* the case with one specific investment that's failing because the thing invested in is failing (that is throwing good money after bad).

Knowing the difference is the trick.




> The only reason how much a stock has fallen in value should matter to your current decision making is in how much it can be considered an indicator of whether it is currently undervalued or not. If you think it has only fallen because of people panic selling, holding might be the better choice (dependent on other available alternatives). If you think that new information has come out that suggests that it was never worth it's original value in the first place, selling may be the correct action.


Yup. Hence my point that this is subjective. In the case of Redcloak this is less a "general trend of failure across the board" as, mounting evidence that the specific thing you are trying to do is a really really bad idea and will fail spectacularly, yet he's continuing on. And he's doing so very much due to past costs he's already spent. Which puts it squarely in this fallacy.

----------


## Jasdoif

> Sure. Was trying to avoid getting too far into specifics and cases. I was addressing the innate, almost knee jerk response of "OMG! My portfolio has lost 80% of its value. I must sell now!", which tends to grip many people. During the 2008 market crash, a billionaire was asked how it felt to have lost so much money. His response: "I haven't lost a penny". Losses aren't "real" until/unless you sell.
> 
> I guess my point isn't that you couldn't improve your gain from the current point by making adjustments, but simply abandoning "the plan" (investments in general) is not the correct course of action. The sunk cost fallacy would say that maintaining the investment would be the wrong choice because you'll just lose more of what you've already lost, but that's rarely the case in a general market downturn. Obviously, this is *not* the case with one specific investment that's failing because the thing invested in is failing (that is throwing good money after bad).
> 
> Knowing the difference is the trick.


It's probably worth noting that what makes a cost a _sunk_ cost is that you *can't* recover the expenditure you've made.

----------


## Gurgeh

> And yet, according to Vortigaunts the Free Man shows his excellence in all things.


The Vortigaunts insist on definite articles, but they don't break names in half; the only character who ever uses "free man" is Breen, and only in reference to resistance propaganda.

----------


## gbaji

> It's probably worth noting that what makes a cost a _sunk_ cost is that you *can't* recover the expenditure you've made.


In many cases, that's true. Certainly where the cost is something like lives lost, or time spent. In those cases, the fallacy represents a desire to "make the sacrifices/cost worth it". Which is where we're at with Redcloak.

The definition of a "sunk" cost gets a bit squirrely when it's just money IMO. And frankly depends on knowledge that we usually don't have (at least not absolutely and objectively). So whether a decision to move forward with something you've previously invested money into is fallacious or not is often not actually known until after the fact (and sometimes not even then). And in many cases in the real world, it's not as clean cut as the hypothetical logical examples may suggest. It's not wrong at all, for example, to consider the costs you've already invested in a project with a known, low (but still positive) ROI when considering an alternative project which will incur a new (possibly unknown) initial investment and has another mostly unknown (but hoped for better) ROI.

There's also an effect I call the "new and shiny" principle, where in an effort to avoid sunk cost driven decisions, you instead constantly shift from the current known solution/plan to the "new and shiny" one, with eternal promises of "better ROI" down the line. You can literally get yourself in a condition where you never actually ever have a completed product because you keep changing to "something better" mid stream. In that case, you should have just stuck with the decision you initially made to completion, see what you get at the end, and then loop back to an assessment and potential (re-)development cycle decision. 

So yeah. In the real world, it's trickier and a bit of a balancing act between sunk cost calculations and "if it ain't broke, don't fix it". Fortunately, our heroes don't live in our world though.  :Small Wink:

----------


## halfeye

> Have you not checked the news at all in the last 3 years?


I've been annoyed about the way cryptocurrency miners have been inflating the prices of graphics cards for probably five years. If you mean you could maybe sell a card second hand for more than you paid, I hope that that will end soon with a cryptocurrency bust. Then, some good cards might appear on the market for not half as much as they used to be.

----------


## brian 333

An example of sunk cost fallacy is, "I have smoked cigarettes for x years so it's no use quitting now."

Why it's a fallacy is obvious with even a casual study of the available literature. What makes it a sunk cost fallacy is using the years of doing it as an excuse to continue. The past 'investment' would rapidly prove to have been wasted resources, (money, health,) and the imagined future benefits, (I haven't gotten sick yet, I might get run over by a train before I get emphysema,) are unrealistic.

Admitting that the cost already paid exceeds any potential benefit is the way out. Redcloak does not do this. Instead, he doubles down on his investment and ignores possible alternatives which may achieve his stated goals while performing acts which make his stated goals more difficult to achieve.

"How many goblins have you killed?"

"Na as many as ye."

----------


## Laurentio III

> There's also an effect I call the "new and shiny" principle, where in an effort to avoid sunk cost driven decisions, you instead constantly shift from the current known solution/plan to the "new and shiny" one, with eternal promises of "better ROI" down the line. You can literally get yourself in a condition where you never actually ever have a completed product because you keep changing to "something better" mid stream. In that case, you should have just stuck with the decision you initially made to completion, see what you get at the end, and then loop back to an assessment and potential (re-)development cycle decision.


Oh, the "Duke Nukem Forever Effect"!
Eternal procrastination pursuing perfection at the cost of concrete release.

----------


## Seward

Sunk Cost fallacy applies on the average, but specific cases will have it work out well anyway.

Similar to how drawing to an inside straight will sometimes win you the pot (and might be a good strategy if the pot is very large compared to the bet you have to place in order to draw the card).

When it is a fallacy, it is because you think because you failed 8 times to roll over a 10 on a d20 (and you lost money on each failure), you believe the odds of rolling an 11+ are higher than 50/50.  In gambling terms, you increase your bet on each failure to 'win it back' even though your odds aren't any better than they were bfore the first bet.  Real odds don't care what happened in the past, and behaving as if the past does matter will rapidly get you broke.

The fallacy in the above example is the belief that you are "due a good outcome because of prior events" reinforced by "I need to get back the money I lost".  A gambler who is not subject to the fallacy will be thinking "this is still a 50/50 bet, and the money I lost previously won't change my assessment of the situation".   Either gambler will win if they roll an 11+ on the next roll, but the stakes will be higher for sunk cost fallacy guy and at some point he'll get enough bad rolls to raise bets high enough to wipe himself out, and eliminate his chance of winning back his money when a clump of better luck arrives.

As noted above, the fallacy is in making decisions based on previous investment as if that investment could affect the outcome (when it does not actually affect the outcome).  It does not mean you won't get lucky and get a good outcome anyway.  It just means that somebody not affected by the fallacy will be making decisions based on a clearer view of actual risks, costs and likely outcomes, rather than a skewed view.

So in the case of Redcloak, it isn't statistical but it is a similar concept.  Redcloak did a bunch of evil acts with an "ends justifies the means" attitude and he'd have to feel bad about them if the "ends" turn out to be not something worth achieving.   Believing Durkon would mean accepting he did all those bad things for no good reason and living with the guilt, so instead he rejects the new information and doubles down on his existing strategy (starting with attacking his new potential ally to make sure the offer isn't repeated any time soon).

But that behavior isn't necessarily going to end badly for Redcloak.  He could still get a good ending from his point of view even if he never listens to the OOTS and clings to his existing strategy blindly.  Maybe he'll find a way to give the Dark One enough leverage or power to survive this crisis in spite of having an incorrect overall plan.  It isn't likely, but the odds are not zero either.

----------


## pyrefiend

The sunk cost fallacy definitely isn't a _formal_ fallacy. From the fact that someone is "committing the sunk cost fallacy", it does not follow that they're making an invalid argument. The basic pattern of sunk cost reasoning is totally valid (in the sense that the conclusion follows from the premises):

Premise One: I put a lot of resources into [some task].
Premise Two: If I put a lot of resources into [some task], then I should finish [that task].
Conclusion: I should finish [that task].

When people invoke the sunk cost fallacy in response to an argument like this, they're really just saying that the second premise is false. Normally, saying that a premise is false isn't the same as saying that the argument is fallacious. But in this particular case, for whatever reason, we do call it a fallacy.

To answer the question from the title, I definitely don't think that all instances of sunk cost reasoning are bad or foolish. Premise Two isn't always false. If it would upset you to abandon a task after putting a lot of resources into it, then that fact gives you at least _some_ reason to see the project through. Really, the "sunk cost fallacy" doesn't deserve to be called a fallacy. It's like one of those countries with "republic" in their name that don't really deserve to be called republics.

----------


## pyrefiend

> When it is a fallacy, it is because you think because you failed 8 times to roll over a 10 on a d20 (and you lost money on each failure), you believe the odds of rolling an 11+ are higher than 50/50. In gambling terms, you increase your bet on each failure to 'win it back' even though your odds aren't any better than they were bfore the first bet. Real odds don't care what happened in the past, and behaving as if the past does matter will rapidly get you broke.


That's the gambler's fallacy, not the sunk cost fallacy.

----------


## gbaji

> To answer the question from the title, I definitely don't think that all instances of sunk cost reasoning are bad or foolish. Premise Two isn't always false. If it would upset you to abandon a task after putting a lot of resources into it, then that fact gives you at least _some_ reason to see the project through. Really, the "sunk cost fallacy" doesn't deserve to be called a fallacy. It's like one of those countries with "republic" in their name that don't really deserve to be called republics.


It's fallacious if the assumption is false (informal fallacy). More correctly, it's fallacious if we assume the assumption to be true (when in fact, it may not be). If it's purely conditional, then it's not actually illogical. But the moment you make a decision based on thinking like "I already spent X dollars on this, so I need to finish", you are engaged in a fallacy because the previous cost may or may not be a "sunk cost", and thus isn't relevant to decision making going forward. What you are basing your decision on, is not actually relevant to the decision itself. The correct process should be "It'll cost me X to finish, and finishing is worth more than X to me, so I should finish".

Honestly, having said that, there are a lot of cases where continuing a project because of the costs you've already spent *is* the correct choice. Imagine you are working on your car. You're rebuilding the engine. You've already purchased the replacement and all equipment necessary for the work, pulled out the old one, and are halfway through putting the new one in. Then, you take a week off. Now maybe you think "do I really want to finish this"? If you had just not started at all, the decision to junk the car might have been an easy one. But now that you have already committed to the project by buying a replacement engine, and done 90% of the work, then yes, you really ought to finish.

Here's the deal though. That decision is not being made because of the previous cost at that point. You've already paid it whether you stop or not. Your decision should always be an assessment of *future cost versus future gain* that you are considering. At this point in the project, how much extra work/cost do you have left to go, and what is the benefit if you spend it? So maybe a couple more days of connecting hoses and whatnot, tightening mounts, running lines, testing, aligning, timing, etc, and you are done. The result is a car with a functioning engine that you can drive around in, for just that much more work. That assessment makes the decision likely "yeah. Finish". In this case, the previous cost is "sunk", but actually does provide a valid reason to finish in that you no longer have that cost as part of the equation.

This doesn't at all mean that the original decision to rebuild the engine was a good cost/benefit choice, but at that point in the project, the decision to continue may very well be. In fact, arguably is a good choice.


Where it  become fallacious is if the future benefit does not justify the future cost (let's say while putting the new engine in, you discover the body is rotted out, the frame is bent, the transmission also needs to be replaced, all the hoses and fittings are busted, and the entire electrical system is just a mass of burned wires), but you are continuing anyway because of costs you have previously incurred. Because at that point, the actual truth is that the cost to finish is not worth what you get when you finish. The concept that I should finish purely because of previously spent costs is *not* a valid way to assess things, yet we often (incorrectly) use that as decision making point. Again, the sunk cost being out of the way and thus is no longer influencing future cost projections when making your decision is fine. But if you're just using that sunk cost on it's own to justify future spending that isn't justified on its  own, then it is not.

How does this apply to Redcloak? That's hard to say. He's definitely got a lot of sunk cost going on. Whether the assessment of future cost at this point is worth continuing The Plan on it's own is really subject to opinion. His rejection of Durkon's appeal is telling though. He was unwilling to even consider that there might be a much better way to improve things for goblins, and that his current course of action will actually make  things much worse for them. And it's reasonable to assume a lot of that unwillingness is exactly due to the high cost he's paid already. It could also be that he truly believes that what he's doing will be the best outcome for goblins in the future, and assumes Durkon is lying to him though. But yeah. I'm leaning towards that sunk cost having a pretty significant effect on his decision making process.

----------


## brian 333

Durkon said Redcloak has already gotten the maximum benefit from his investment, and that further investment would likely destroy what he's achieved with no guarantee that what follows would be even the equal of what he has now.

Redcloak had no reason to take Durkon at his word, but then he never bothered to fact-check the information. He simply assured himself that Durkon's offer was a desperate attempt to derail his so-far successful plan.

That clearly demonstrates the Sunk Cost aspect. Redcloak cannot consider alternate options because he's paid so much for the one he wants. The idea that he already has what he claims he wants is proof to him that The Plan is working, not that he has succeeded.

----------


## Fyraltari

> Redcloak had no reason to take Durkon at his word, but then he never bothered to fact-check the information.


To play Devil's Advocate for a moment, it's been what, fourty minutes since that conversation? He won't get new spells until dusk (not sure how that works at the north pole) and there's not exactly a public library around.

Like people said at the time, it'd be interesting to see if he tries to Commune with his boss next time he has an opportunity to.

----------


## Grey_Wolf_c

> Honestly, having said that, there are a lot of cases where continuing a project because of the costs you've already spent *is* the correct choice. Imagine you are working on your car. You're rebuilding the engine. You've already purchased the replacement and all equipment necessary for the work, pulled out the old one, and are halfway through putting the new one in. Then, you take a week off. Now maybe you think "do I really want to finish this"? If you had just not started at all, the decision to junk the car might have been an easy one. But now that you have already committed to the project by buying a replacement engine, and done 90% of the work, then yes, you really ought to finish.


No, there is no "ought". That's where Sunk Cost Fallacy (SCF) lies. Even after putting 90% of the effort in, you still should make the decision based on remaining cost, not sunk cost. The effort you have put in is now irrelevant, whether it is 0%, 10% or 90%. If you come back, look at it, decide that finishing the job will cost $1000, and the neighbour offers to sell you an equivalent car for $900, then you should take that deal. To do otherwise is to engage in SCF.

Is that scenario unlikely? Certainly. But nevertheless that's what the SCF warns about**: don't make decision based on looking backwards because you "ought" to finish what you started or because you've already put X amount into the effort. Make the decision based on remaining cost, and compare it against expected value and alternative solutions.

The problem with your example is that the only apparent alternative is to not have a car, which makes it a rather poor example of the issue. For it to be valid, you need to express what alternatives this person has other than finishing the car - yes, you go into detail of other issues with the car that changes remaining cost, but still, you present no alternative against finishing the car, without which SCF is silent - if you need a car, and you've dismantled the car, sure, you need to reassemble it no matter the cost. And if the cost doesn't matter, neither can SCF apply. But what, in this example, are the alternatives? Would they instead plan to use public transport? Stay home permanently? Use their other car?

GW

----------


## halfeye

> No, there is no "ought". That's where Sunk Cost Fallacy (SCF) lies. Even after putting 90% of the effort in, you still should make the decision based on remaining cost, not sunk cost. The effort you have put in is now irrelevant, whether it is 0%, 10% or 90%. If you come back, look at it, decide that finishing the job will cost $1000, and the neighbour offers to sell you an equivalent car for $900, then you should take that deal. To do otherwise is to engage in SCF.
> 
> Is that scenario unlikely? Certainly. But nevertheless that's what the SCF warns about**: don't make decision based on looking backwards because you "ought" to finish what you started or because you've already put X amount into the effort. Make the decision based on remaining cost, and compare it against expected value and alternative solutions.
> 
> The problem with your example is that the only apparent alternative is to not have a car, which makes it a rather poor example of the issue. For it to be valid, you need to express what alternatives this person has other than finishing the car - yes, you go into detail of other issues with the car that changes remaining cost, but still, you present no alternative against finishing the car, without which SCF is silent - if you need a car, and you've dismantled the car, sure, you need to reassemble it no matter the cost. And if the cost doesn't matter, neither can SCF apply. But what, in this example, are the alternatives? Would they instead plan to use public transport? Stay home permanently? Use their other car?
> 
> GW


With cars, before computers came built into them, there were some people who repaired them as entertainment, so that might be part of the benefit of repairing one.

----------


## TaiLiu

> The sunk cost fallacy definitely isn't a _formal_ fallacy. From the fact that someone is "committing the sunk cost fallacy", it does not follow that they're making an invalid argument. The basic pattern of sunk cost reasoning is totally valid (in the sense that the conclusion follows from the premises):
> 
> Premise One: I put a lot of resources into [some task].
> Premise Two: If I put a lot of resources into [some task], then I should finish [that task].
> Conclusion: I should finish [that task].
> 
> When people invoke the sunk cost fallacy in response to an argument like this, they're really just saying that the second premise is false. Normally, saying that a premise is false isn't the same as saying that the argument is fallacious. But in this particular case, for whatever reason, we do call it a fallacy.
> 
> To answer the question from the title, I definitely don't think that all instances of sunk cost reasoning are bad or foolish. Premise Two isn't always false. If it would upset you to abandon a task after putting a lot of resources into it, then that fact gives you at least _some_ reason to see the project through. Really, the "sunk cost fallacy" doesn't deserve to be called a fallacy. It's like one of those countries with "republic" in their name that don't really deserve to be called republics.


Right, exactly! I think generally the informal fallacies are frustrating cuz ppl conflate them with all sorts of things, including formal fallacies or even unsound arguments.

----------


## gbaji

> No, there is no "ought". That's where Sunk Cost Fallacy (SCF) lies. Even after putting 90% of the effort in, *you still should make the decision based on remaining cost, not sunk cost*. The effort you have put in is now irrelevant, whether it is 0%, 10% or 90%. If you come back, look at it, decide that finishing the job will cost $1000, and the neighbour offers to sell you an equivalent car for $900, then you should take that deal. To do otherwise is to engage in SCF.


I explained the bolded bit in the very next paragraph. It's not like I left it out or anything. I also explained how the sunk cost, having already been paid, reduces *the remaining cost*, thus affecting the calculation of "future cost versus future benefit". To be perfectly honest, I didn't word that section as well as I should have though.




> Is that scenario unlikely? Certainly. But nevertheless that's what the SCF warns about**: don't make decision based on looking backwards because you "ought" to finish what you started or because you've already put X amount into the effort. Make the decision based on remaining cost, and compare it against expected value and alternative solutions.


Yup. Which is exactly what I said. Again, my only point (since I'm not sure I was clear enough) about the relevance of the sunk cost is that since it has already been paid, it reduces the "cost remaining" calculation, which may influence the choice. If your choice was "rebuild my current car for $3k or buy a new one for $1k", assuming the resulting vehicle is otherwise identical, the choice is obvious. But if I've already spent $2.5k of that total $3k cost, with just $500 left to go, then the correct choice is the exact opposite. That's all I was saying about that.




> The problem with your example is that the only apparent alternative is to not have a car, which makes it a rather poor example of the issue. For it to be valid, you need to express what alternatives this person has other than finishing the car - yes, you go into detail of other issues with the car that changes remaining cost, but still, you present no alternative against finishing the car, without which SCF is silent - if you need a car, and you've dismantled the car, sure, you need to reassemble it no matter the cost. And if the cost doesn't matter, neither can SCF apply. But what, in this example, are the alternatives? Would they instead plan to use public transport? Stay home permanently? Use their other car?
> 
> GW


Yeah. I was trying to avoid too many details and rabbit holes. But sure. I'll also point out that there's a utility value and intrinsic value calculation to consider as well. Even if someone offers you an alternative car that will  cost less to buy than the remaining cost for the rebuild (relative utility value), you might still want to finish simply because the value of the vehicle after rebuild will be worth more that it's worth now (intrinsic value). If that increase in value for finishing the job is greater than the cost of completing the job, then you "ought to finish". Try selling a car with an engine halfway installed. You'll obviously get more money for it if you finish, assuming that the expertise to do so is of value as well (not everyone can finish the job, so doing so will net you more money on the sale). This is a whole different calculation, but I'm bringing it up because it's not always as clear as A versus B comparisons.

We could also examine the value of owning a second/additional vehicle and whether that's worth the cost to finish the job to you as well (which I guess is back to utility). There's a ton of different factors, and we could spend a lot of time examining them. Or we can just use a basic rule: If the value to you for finishing is worth the remaining cost to finish, then you should finish. We don't need to figure out "value", just accept that it exists.

Well, obviously, as long as that value calculation doesn't include "getting something back for the money I sunk into it". Cause that just brings us back around in a circle.

----------


## brian 333

I think, for it to be a Sunk Cost Fallacy, the original objective must have been one that was not achievable using the original plan, but the one who has made the investment continues working the plan because so much has been invested that the investor is unwilling to admit to having been wrong all along.

In the car analogy, all we're doing is haggling over the price of a working car. Both plans will succeed, so the question becomes one of willingness. Am I willing to pay more for the same item?

In Redcloak's case, The Plan was never going to work. Either The Snarl was going to ruin The Plan, or the gods were. Regardless of the cost, it was a bad plan. However...

As a side effect of preventing it's implementation, Redcloak was offered exactly what he claimed he wanted all along. He refused the bird-in-his-hand to continue working The Plan, (which is still not going to work.) He continues The Plan because to achieve his stated goals by other means would force him to admit that all of the sacrifices he forced others to make for it were a waste. He cannot admit that it was all for nothing.

The cost already paid is the justification to pay more for something that, in the end, was never going to work.

----------


## Forikroder

i think its ridiculous to refer to it as sunk cost fallacy

IMO, sunk cost fallacy assumes that the player is losing money, that they have remaining money, and are capable of leaving the table with their remaining funds

Redcloak went from leading a few goblins in a swamp, to creating an entire goblin country, he may be betting big but hes winning those bets, even though hes lost at 4 of the 5 gates each one was close, none of them actually cost him anything but an opportunity and hes been benefiting from them anyway (even if most of them was just XP)

secondly as he told Ochul, hes all in, even if he wanted to leave the table Xykon absolutely wouldnt allow him, and even if Xykon allowed him to, the plan is the only thing keeping Gobbtopia safe, if he leaves then the Order joins the other southern country and takes down Gobbtopia, and we know they would have since we saw it in their dream sequence, the only reason they wont now is because Thor told them how badly they need redcloak

which comes to my third point, Redcloak has no reason to think his current plan cant work (aside from the words of his sworn enemies) and no alternative plan (Durkons offer was terrible, full of holes, and doesnt even give Redlcoak what he wants which is deific recognition of goblin rights)

the sole moment that could actually be attributed to sunk cost fallacy was turning Xykon into a lich, but redcloak thought he had a royal flush so felt it was safe to go all in




> As a side effect of preventing it's implementation, Redcloak was offered exactly what he claimed he wanted all along.


thats not true, Durkon only promised that the OoTS wouldnt attack Gobbtopia and that he would try to talk one nation out of attacking it too, that doesnt mean all the other southern nations wouldnt rise up and take back Azure city, or that anyone would ever consider goblins as equals, it does nothing to ensure the fair treatment of goblins for the rest of eternity

----------


## pyrefiend

> the moment you make a decision based on thinking like "I already spent X dollars on this, so I need to finish", you are engaged in a fallacy because the previous cost may or may not be a "sunk cost", and thus isn't relevant to decision making going forward. What you are basing your decision on, is not actually relevant to the decision itself. The correct process should be "It'll cost me X to finish, and finishing is worth more than X to me, so I should finish".





> Even after putting 90% of the effort in, you still should make the decision based on remaining cost, not sunk cost. The effort you have put in is now irrelevant, whether it is 0%, 10% or 90%.


But I guess the question is... why? Why is it wrong to let your decision be influenced by the amount of effort that you've already put in? If you're like Durkon, and you're the sort of person who can't stand to not finish what you started, what's wrong with that? Or more specifically, how is that _an error in reasoning_?

*Spoiler*
Show

To be clear, I'm not saying that there's nothing wrong with sunk cost reasoning. I think it's people who ignore sunk costs are likely to be happier than those who obsess over sunk costs. But that doesn't mean that people who obsess over sunk costs are making an error in reasoning. People who don't obsess over their social status or appearance are also likely to be happier than those who do, but it's not like image-obsessed people are making some sort of error in reasoning.

----------


## Kish

Because you won't be getting back what you put in anyway. If you get back 50 cents if you put in one dollar that's a bad choice. If you get back 50 cents if you put in one dollar and you've already put in 200 dollars...that's a bad choice and going "I've invested too much to stop now!" doesn't make it one whit less bad a choice.

Also, to your weirdly and gratuitously spoilered section, of course it does.

----------


## hroþila

I would say if you're aware that you're losing out materially and that's not a real problem for you and you'd rather get the psychological satisfaction of successfully pushing through the obstacle, then it's not a sunk cost fallacy. But that's more like, I dunno, persevering through a puzzle game where you're stuck, when you could be having more fun in the short term doing something else instead. In those cases the emotional payoff can still be worth it. It's simply not comparable.



> none of them actually cost him anything


*Spoiler: SoD*
Show

Except for what was left of his family, you mean. For starters.

----------


## Thrillhouse

We fall into fallacies precisely because they resemble a wise course of action in certain circumstances.

There exist circumstances where it is wise to continue investing resources into something that hasnt yet been successful. It really would be a foolish waste of resources to, for example, try to create a new medication and then give up because it had no effect on the first person you tried it with. It is worth giving the thing a fair shot.

The fallacy comes in because sometimes the amount of resources weve invested in something BLINDS us to very clear evidence that what were trying wont work. Hence the fallacy.

So, when its a fallacy its always a fallacy. But there do exist courses of action that look like the fallacy but arent: this is why we fall into the fallacy to begin with.

Similar things happen for the slippery slope fallacy or ad hominem. It is often wise to avoid a course of action we know will have bad consequences: but sometimes we dont actually have any good reason to believe there will be such consequencesthats when its a fallacy. Or, it is wise not trust people we know to be dishonest or have bad motiveswhen their word is literally the only information we have to go on. Where it becomes a fallacy is when we believe bad people are always incorrect, and therefore the fact that the bad man says it *proves* it is false.

----------


## BaronOfHell

> The fallacy comes in because sometimes the amount of resources weve invested in something BLINDS us to very clear evidence that what were trying wont work. Hence the fallacy.
> 
> So, when its a fallacy its always a fallacy. But there do exist courses of action that look like the fallacy but arent: this is why we fall into the fallacy to begin with.


I have been considering, usually when we read a story and determine a person commits a fallacy, is it not because we have more knowledge than they do?

From RC's point of view, what he has now is tangible and what he has in the future is uncertain. Then why should he trust anything else than the plan, where he believes he is in control and working steadily towards his goals, compared to e.g. other directions where he may not be able to get as far as he is now or where he may depend on others and therefore has to relinquish control?

In my mind there is no doubt, despite being an incredibly logical individual, that on the whole, RC is not driven by logic, but emotions. However even if that is true, it doesn't mean he doesn't handle his goals in a logical manner given the information he has available and his past experiences.

So is RC even aware he is throwing away what may perhaps be the only chance ever to save the future? For what we know, if the Snarl truly is evolving (based on the planet in the rift), we may be way beyond the half way mark of amount of worlds the gods will ever create as long as the snarl exists, given building worlds around it is not guaranteed to work if the snarl changes enough.

We know what Thor told Durkon, and I don't think RC did believe Durkon's words, even if he believed Durkon himself not to be a bad guy.

----------


## pyrefiend

> Also, to your weirdly and gratuitously spoilered section, of course it does.


But you don't think image-obsessed people are committing a fallacy, right? We don't say that someone is committing a fallacy whenever they do anything foolish.

----------


## Jasdoif

> I would say if you're aware that you're losing out materially and that's not a real problem for you and you'd rather get the psychological satisfaction of successfully pushing through the obstacle, then it's not a sunk cost fallacy. But that's more like, I dunno, persevering through a puzzle game where you're stuck, when you could be having more fun in the short term doing something else instead. In those cases the emotional payoff can still be worth it. It's simply not comparable.


I think it can be compared....What's happened is that the original goal has been supplanted by "finish what you started", or perhaps "don't look/feel like you've wasted your effort thus far".  The sunk cost fallacy comes into play when there's no awareness/acceptance of that; when the goals are at cross-purposes, efforts to satisfy the new goal are being perceived as efforts towards the original goal, despite being actively counterproductive for that.

----------


## Kish

> But you don't think image-obsessed people are committing a fallacy, right?


YES OF COURSE THEY ARE.



> We don't say that someone is committing a fallacy whenever they do anything foolish.


It is accurate to say "everyone outside comedy stories speaks more casually than to constantly use the language of formal logic."

It is not accurate to go from that to "so, when someone is clearly and unambiguously committing a classic and well-known fallacy, they're probably not actually committing a fallacy," which is functionally identical to "that doesn't mean that people who obsess over sunk costs are making an error in reasoning."

----------


## pyrefiend

> YES OF COURSE THEY ARE.


Didnt expect that response. Youre using fallacy in a way broader sense than Ive ever seen it used.




> It is accurate to say "everyone outside comedy stories speaks more casually than to constantly use the language of formal logic."


The point isnt really about formal logic. The point is whether people are making a mistake in their reasoning when they commit the sunk cost fallacy, as opposed to some other kind of error.




> It is not accurate to go from that to "so, when someone is clearly and unambiguously committing a classic and well-known fallacy, they're probably not actually committing a fallacy," which is functionally identical to "that doesn't mean that people who obsess over sunk costs are making an error in reasoning."


Those arent the same for a lot of reasons, but mostly because I deny that the sunk cost fallacy is a fallacy. The fact that it has fallacy in the name dont make it so, any more than French fries are French or English muffins are muffins.

----------


## pearl jam

Asserting the English muffins are not muffins is ahistorical. They, and other similar flatbreads, predate the American invented quickbreads which due to their greater popularity within the colonies came to take over the vernacular use of the term there.

----------


## gbaji

> I have been considering, usually when we read a story and determine a person commits a fallacy, is it not because we have more knowledge than they do?
> 
> From RC's point of view, what he has now is tangible and what he has in the future is uncertain. Then why should he trust anything else than the plan, where he believes he is in control and working steadily towards his goals, compared to e.g. other directions where he may not be able to get as far as he is now or where he may depend on others and therefore has to relinquish control?


Yes. This is a very valid point. The sunk cost is relatively easy to visualize. It's the future cost and future "value upon completion" that is often in doubt. But then again, if we consider just the question in the topic subject line, obviously, if we've already declared something a "sunk cost fallacy", then it is, by definition, a fallacy. So yes, it's always fallacious to consider past costs when deciding to continue something (I've already spent X, so may as well spend Y more). It's sometimes fallacious to consider it in the other direction as well (I've already spent X, now you want me to spend Y more, for an unknown Z), but not always. It's the unknown of Z that makes it tricky in that case. In Redcloaks case, he may very well be proceeding as though Z is going to totally be worth it.

That's the unknown though. Also what "value" we put on things isn't always economic, so it's not always fallacious to continue, especially in cases where the work itself is rewarding. Someone brought up the point about people who like to work on cars earlier, for example. One can also argue that the entire point of working on a puzzle is the process, not the result (otherwise we'd just buy a print of the resulting picture, right?). So the act of "spending the cost" can itself by part of the reward, which makes things less clear.

I will say, that the sunk cost fallacy (like most fallacies) is very useful in debate (as opposed to argument) in that you can use it to influence people in many cases. And sometimes even in a good way. Like, say, last Saturday night when I was sitting at a friends house watching a certain baseball game. She was so upset at how poorly the game was going, and with the other team having just expanded their lead, she just couldn't watch anymore. She literally had the remote in her hand and was about to turn the TV off, when I said to her "Well, we've already watched the first 6 and a half innings, we may as well watch the rest of the game". Total sunk cost fallacy argument. Totally worth it.  :Small Big Grin:

----------


## JonahFalcon

Here is a double example of the sunk cost fallacy.




"I guess he didn't know when to quit."

----------


## pyrefiend

> if we consider just the question in the topic subject line, obviously, if we've already declared something a "sunk cost fallacy", then it is, by definition, a fallacy.


A whole bunch of people in this thread have said this, but why? There's such a thing as a misnomer. Just because it has "fallacy" in the name, it doesn't mean that sunk cost reasoning really is always fallacious.




> Asserting the English muffins are not muffins is ahistorical. They, and other similar flatbreads, predate the American invented quickbreads which due to their greater popularity within the colonies came to take over the vernacular use of the term there.


Dang, I had no idea. You learn something new everyday I guess!

----------


## dave_smith354

> As others have said: yes, by definition. You're right, though, that it may be the case that a decision that you've sunk the most resources into may be the best decision.
> 
> One difficulty with the sunk cost fallacy is that it's an informal fallacy, and informal fallacies have a tendency to be used without a serious understanding of what they are. (To the point where I'd say the informal fallacies are more harmful than useful.) Notably, people notice that an argument contains an aspect of an informal fallacy and then they decide that the whole argument must be wrong. As you point out, that's silly.


Silly, and an informal fallacy in its own right (the fallacy fallacy: assuming you interlocutor's conclusions to be false because they were fallaciously argued at some point, without reference to other sources).




> A whole bunch of people in this thread have said this, but why? There's such a thing as a misnomer. Just because it has "fallacy" in the name, it doesn't mean that sunk cost reasoning really is always fallacious.


There is such a thing as a misnomer, but the sunk cost fallacy is well-defined and has been recognised for a long time. It belongs to the informal class of fallacies (as TaiLiu mentioned), but most of the common fallacies are informal.

It is certainly true that some people misapply the names of fallacies and it's worth becoming more familiar with them in order to tell the difference, but if the sunk cost fallacy is in play at all then it is definitely fallacious. The real difficulty is trying to recognise it with imperfect information.

----------


## Fish

You can make the sunken cost fallacy clearer by retooling the chess and car examples. In each, make it so the person has spent a great deal of time and effort and has _nothing to show for it._

The chess player spent hours and hours studying the king-rook endgame. The opening went well and hes now up three pawns, a bishop, a queen and one rook. But hes going to throw away all of his other good pieces just to get to that king-rook endgame, because otherwise he feels the time spent will have been a waste (and not because, lets say, hes just eager to put his training into practice).

The mechanic fixing his car has spent $1000 driving and flying around to the wrecking yards in the area looking for the right engine block for his car and hasnt found one yet. It may cost another $1000 in the future with no guarantee that he will find the parts he is looking for. Or it could be $2000 or $5000 more. He still insists on doing it this way even though It would be cheaper to switch to a different plan  just buy one new for $500  because of the money hes already spent (and not because, lets say, he has a ton of disposable income and this project interests him personally).

In both cases, the individual is looking at the time spent on the endeavor as an investment, even though it has provided no material benefit, so they are steering toward that solution to make good on the investment. The other examples (buying an engine, buying computer parts, studying a line of moves in chess) are murky because the effort spent has provided a reasonable return, or has made measurable progress toward the goal, so the decider has something of value in hand (an engine, some computer parts, the ability to make the next moves in that line faster while the opponent must now calculate heavily).

Edit: both of these scenarios are akin to what Redcloak has done. Hes prepared for this particular end game and is throwing away all of his advantages to get there; and hes been wandering around the map looking for the Maguffin that will fix his problems, without any guarantee that it will save him.

----------


## pyrefiend

> There is such a thing as a misnomer, but the sunk cost fallacy is well-defined and has been recognised for a long time. It belongs to the informal class of fallacies (as TaiLiu mentioned), but most of the common fallacies are informal.


I definitely agree with that. I didn't mean to suggest that only formal fallacies should be called fallacies. If someone makes an argument that begs the question, then they haven't committed a formal fallacy but they've clearly made a kind of error in reasoning. Question begging arguments are completely defective in the sense that they lend no support to their conclusions, so I can see why we'd say that question begging arguments are fallacious.

But sunk cost reasoning isn't like that at all. Unlike arguments that beg the question, arguments that rely on sunk cost reasoning aren't automatically defective. They can lend support to their conclusions. To use BloodSquirrel's excellent example: if Joe cares a lot about using the parts that he's already bought, then that can give Joe a reason to continue building with those parts, even if he would have more money if he abandoned the parts and bought a premade computer. You might think that it's kind of weird for Joe to want to use the _specific_ parts that he already bought. But if that's what he wants, how are you supposed to argue? The heart wants what the heart wants. I guess you could say that there are just some things that it is irrational to want, and this is one of them. 

Actually the more I think about it the more interesting it seems. I wonder if there is something wrong with sunk cost reasoning in general. But... Ill drop it now because this has nothing to do with OotS.

----------


## gbaji

> Asserting the English muffins are not muffins is ahistorical. They, and other similar flatbreads, predate the American invented quickbreads which due to their greater popularity within the colonies came to take over the vernacular use of the term there.


You know? I was going to respond by saying that English Muffins aren't flatbreads, then re-read what you were saying and so... er. Yeah. I'm not sure why we call that particular style of Muffins "English" though, since there are a ton of similar quickbreads we make in the US that could reasonably all be related to the same source.

I can say, from direct experience, that actually baking English Muffins and getting the shape/texture remotely correct, is super difficult. Other than that, I got nothing.




> In both cases, the individual is looking at the time spent on the endeavor as an investment, even though it has provided no material benefit, so they are steering toward that solution to make good on the investment. The other examples (buying an engine, buying computer parts, studying a line of moves in chess) are murky because the effort spent has provided a reasonable return, or has made measurable progress toward the goal, so the decider has something of value in hand (an engine, some computer parts, the ability to make the next moves in that line faster while the opponent must now calculate heavily).
> 
> Edit: both of these scenarios are akin to what Redcloak has done. Hes prepared for this particular end game and is throwing away all of his advantages to get there; and hes been wandering around the map looking for the Maguffin that will fix his problems, without any guarantee that it will save him.


Yeah. That's the trickiest part of identifying a sunk cost fallacy. Even though a cost is "sunk", there may still be (often is) some advantage to making use of whatever you did get for spending that cost. In Redcloak's case, and I think several people have pointed this out, even though "The Plan(tm)" may not be viable as originally intended, a heck of a lot of the things he's done so far (including significant costs) have born other fruit (Gobbotopia for one). Also, one can absolutely argue that no one would be even approaching him to negotiate if he hadn't done all of those things either.

Well, we might be seeing Thor wanting him to help out with the snarl prison thing either way, but now because of the past actions, and the threat of him going forward with the plan, he's presumably in a much better position to negotiate then he would be otherwise. Of course, the trick is him realizing what he should really be negotiating for...

----------


## Oromin

I'll play devil's advocate and argue that Redcloak isn't engaged in the sunk cost fallacy at all. In order to be fallacious the expected value of proceeding has to be less than the the expected value of changing your course. Moreover it's the expected value as Redcloak values it.

If the Plan succeeds he gets goblin equality as enforced by divine mandate. Even if he didn't have a pathological need to be right (which he totally does) he'd value that extremely highly. He'd also get all the things Durkon is offering anyway, so it's not like he's giving up much more than he already has in that scenario. He also considers the failure case, the current world is destroyed and The Dark One gets a seat at the table for next time, to be better than the status quo. Given all that the expected value of the Plan is actually really high. It's not clear that there's anything he values enough to be worth abandoning all that for. At least from his perspective.

The Plan can't work of course and the Dark One likely won't survive to the next world. But the only source on that Redcloak has is Durkon and Minrah who Redcloak has rational reasons to distrust. They're long term enemies with no evidence and a vested stake in stopping him. Their stated reason for negotiating at all (stopping the Snarl forever) is something Redcloak thinks is impossible. He has only their word that it is possible.

----------


## Kish

In complete isolation, a goblin could argue that Durkon and Minrah are not to be trusted and keeping Xykon as a beatstick for just a little longer is worth the friendly fire casualties he isn't really inflicting at the moment.

I do not think Redcloak is that goblin. I think his conclusion that Durkon and Minrah were lying about everything that would point to "you should actually cooperate with them" is way more than 50% informed by "I want this to be the case."

----------


## brian 333

I kind of agree with the logic as presented. Redcloak has been shown to be a competent strategist, and strategists tend to, in the absence of better intelligence, base what they do on what they think they would do in their enemy's place.

In this case, if he was the enemy and Team Evil was winning, he would lie, cheat, or whatever it took to manipulate Team Evil away from the goal. Therefore he assumes the enemy is lying to him.

However, a moment of reflection will show that this is the enemy that has denied him 3 of the 4 gates he has tried to access. He knows they can do it again. His plan? Find the gate faster. Presumably to, what? Lure the enemy to attempt to destroy it so he can eliminate them? What if they do destroy it? How does he know they are not already there holding a magic hammer over it, ready to take it out before he has a chance to fight for it?

The flaw in the plan was baked in from the beginning. 'Beat the gate guardians, then spend a few weeks doing a ritual. Nobody is going to show up with the ability, or intent, to stop you.' Investing in that plan was the fallacy. 
Continuing to invest because so much has already been invested makes it a sunk cost fallacy. It was never going to work. Putting more into a plan that was never going to work, and which has been demonstrated to be unworkable in the 4 of 5 possible tries, makes it a really bad idea.

But, hey, let's go for the plan anyway and hope the untested, (really the unplanned,) Plan B works when if, Plan A fails.

----------


## gbaji

To be fair to Redcloak though, isn't that why he has Xykon with him in the first place? Anyone who shows up to stop them, get's blasted into pudding by Xykon, and they continue the ritual. It's not a terrible idea, even if from a trope perspective, it is just begging for some last minute heroics to come and stop them.

----------


## woweedd

> To be fair to Redcloak though, isn't that why he has Xykon with him in the first place? Anyone who shows up to stop them, get's blasted into pudding by Xykon, and they continue the ritual. It's not a terrible idea, even if from a trope perspective, it is just begging for some last minute heroics to come and stop them.


In the OOTS-verse, tropes can be quite potent. That's, like, 5/6ths of what makes Tarquin effective.

----------


## Smoutwortel

> The Red Cloak suffers from sunk cost fallacy, meaning it cannot disregard previously invested resources when taking future actions into consideration.
> 
> In the case of the goblin puppet master, it means anything that is not _the plan_, is not an option.. at least not if it goes against the plan. I suppose mentally, his conscience just wouldn't be able to bear it.
> 
> I believe the story truly does portray a fallacy, because there seems to have been many better options RC could have chosen than to follow the plan.
> Like... until the secret mercenaries of Shojo (no not the boys in blue, except one of those did so too) began blowing up Gates like there is no tomorrow, RC's time did seem pretty unlimited. Xykon didn't have to be the be all end all, but I suppose now he can't ditch the lich anymore, or he might as well give up his life and the plan altogether.
> 
> Anyway what I wonder is if sunk cost doesn't have a value if you do have limited time? A scenario where you invest resources for some gain, and based on what you get, you make your next decision. The alternative of ignoring whatever you got seems unlikely to be better?
> 
> ...


The problem here is that the fallacy is based on a grain of truth, but with a potentially untrue assumptions.
The potentially wrong assumptions are that all other options have upfront costs higher than the still remaining costs and that none of the previously made investments can be reused.
If the assumptions are true switching options always requires around as much as you already invested plus the stream costs making every option that isn't "the plan" needlessly expensive.
Our example chess player can't reuse a lot of his previous thought process, because it contained a lot of forward thinking on this one specific move.

----------


## Aodha

[QUOTE=BaronOfHell;25597287]
I believe the story truly does portray a fallacy, because there seems to have been many better options RC could have chosen than to follow the plan.

I don't think Red Cloak represents a philosophical concept, or at least not is a pure sense. He is a cleric of the Dark One, and is behaving like such a character should. He is distrustful of the other player's motives, as the DO is distrustful of the other gods, and neither feel any compunction to play nicely.

----------


## Fyraltari

> I don't think Red Cloak represents a philosophical concept, or at least not is a pure sense. He is a cleric of the Dark One, and is behaving like such a character should. He is distrustful of the other player's motives, as the DO is distrustful of the other gods, and neither feel any compunction to play nicely.


We're told a few times, once by Redcloak's own brother, that the reason Redcloak sticks with Xykon is because he can't rationalize all the deaths he caused otherwise.

----------


## Oromin

> We're told a few times, once by Redcloak's own brother, that the reason Redcloak sticks with Xykon is because he can't rationalize all the deaths he caused otherwise.


In Redcloak's defense if he tried to leave now Xykon would kill him, the bugbear village, and every goblin in Gobbotopia (and probably any others he happened to find) just to spite him. I'm not saying you're wrong, but abandoning Xykon comes with some pretty hefty risks and not just for himself right at the moment.

----------


## Fyraltari

> In Redcloak's defense if he tried to leave now Xykon would kill him, the bugbear village, and every goblin in Gobbotopia (and probably any others he happened to find) just to spite him. I'm not saying you're wrong, but abandoning Xykon comes with some pretty hefty risks and not just for himself right at the moment.


Hmm, I wonder how well Xykon would have fared if Redcloak had denied him healing at a critical moment during one of the dungeon crawls.

----------


## brian 333

I wonder how well he'd fare if Redcloak set out to destroy him. Redcloak has serious advantages versus undead, and intimate knowledge of Xykon.

----------


## InvisibleBison

> I wonder how well he'd fare if Redcloak set out to destroy him. Redcloak has serious advantages versus undead, and intimate knowledge of Xykon.


On the other hand, Xykon has had years to prepare for such a betrayal, spends a good amount of time making magic items, and isn't nearly as stupid as he seems to be. I think that if Redcloak were to try and betray Xykon he'd find it to be more of a fight than he'd expect.

----------


## Oromin

> I wonder how well he'd fare if Redcloak set out to destroy him. Redcloak has serious advantages versus undead, and intimate knowledge of Xykon.


I feel like it's fair to assume that Redcloak does have a plan to kill Xykon. He didn't go through the trouble of making a fake phylactery for nothing and he knows very well that it's not useful until Xykon's body is destroyed.

----------


## Edric O

The sunk cost fallacy *is* always a fallacy simply because of its definition, but a given person taking into account their sunk costs in a given situation *isn't* necessarily always engaged in the sunk cost fallacy. "Sunk cost fallacy" doesn't mean "taking into account your sunk costs is always wrong". It means "taking into account your sunk costs is _sometimes_ wrong". OOTS is trying to showcase one of those times with Redcloak.

In order for the fallacy to happen, there must be a better option that you are refusing to consider because of your sunk costs. When _no better option actually exists_, there is no fallacy.

For example, consider a gambler who absolutely needs to win big today or else something terrible will happen, and he has already invested a lot of money in a game which he has a low chance of winning. It was a mistake to invest so much money in that game, but now that he has - now that he's got that sunk cost - the best option is to continue playing, because he doesn't have enough money left to be able to afford to quit this game and start over with another game. His chances of winning may be low, but if he's in a situation where "you win or you die", it is rational to keep playing.

That's an example of taking into account your sunk cost in a way that *isn't* fallacious. When you've already invested all available resources into one thing and *aren't* able to start over with something else, it is rational to stick to your original plan no matter how bad it was. Because you don't have another option.

The argument is that Redcloak *does* have another option(s), and that's why *his* behaviour is based on a fallacy.

I'm not actually sure if that's true. Obviously The Giant intends it to be true, but it's not clear that Redcloak is legitimately aware of the existence of alternatives to The Plan that are clearly better. All the alternatives he has been presented with so far require him to essentially trust that the Humans/Elves/Dwarves won't just stomp the goblins into the ground as soon as they are able to. Would it really be more rational for him to trust his enemies than to continue with a Plan that his god assures him will work? Has Redcloak really been presented with convincing evidence that The Plan is an inferior option to some other alternative?

----------


## Edric O

> I'll play devil's advocate and argue that Redcloak isn't engaged in the sunk cost fallacy at all. In order to be fallacious the expected value of proceeding has to be less than the the expected value of changing your course. Moreover it's the expected value as Redcloak values it.
> 
> If the Plan succeeds he gets goblin equality as enforced by divine mandate. Even if he didn't have a pathological need to be right (which he totally does) he'd value that extremely highly. He'd also get all the things Durkon is offering anyway, so it's not like he's giving up much more than he already has in that scenario. He also considers the failure case, the current world is destroyed and The Dark One gets a seat at the table for next time, to be better than the status quo. Given all that the expected value of the Plan is actually really high. It's not clear that there's anything he values enough to be worth abandoning all that for. At least from his perspective.
> 
> The Plan can't work of course and the Dark One likely won't survive to the next world. But the only source on that Redcloak has is Durkon and Minrah who Redcloak has rational reasons to distrust. They're long term enemies with no evidence and a vested stake in stopping him. Their stated reason for negotiating at all (stopping the Snarl forever) is something Redcloak thinks is impossible. He has only their word that it is possible.


I basically agree with you. Redcloak has deep-seated psychological issues that make him stick to The Plan, but, _even if he didn't,_ The Plan still would be the rational best choice as far as he knows. He has no reason to trust a single word that comes from Durkon or Minrah, and other than (a) The Plan or (b) trusting Durkon and Minrah, what other options does he have?

Well, the only other option would be to say that Gobbotopia is enough, the goblins already have their own independent nation in this world and he's going to go back and help with that instead of The Plan.

That would be his option (c). But that would require a showdown with Xykon, which he has no guarantee of winning, and he knows that if he loses then Xykon will immediately massacre all of Gobbotopia out of spite.

So, given that option (b) is an offer from his enemies, and option (c) is ludicrously risky on top of being just a consolation prize, I really think it is rational for Redcloak to choose option (a), continuing with The Plan.

----------


## brian 333

> I basically agree with you. Redcloak has deep-seated psychological issues that make him stick to The Plan, but, _even if he didn't,_ The Plan still would be the rational best choice as far as he knows. He has no reason to trust a single word that comes from Durkon or Minrah, and other than (a) The Plan or (b) trusting Durkon and Minrah, what other options does he have?
> 
> Well, the only other option would be to say that Gobbotopia is enough, the goblins already have their own independent nation in this world and he's going to go back and help with that instead of The Plan.
> 
> That would be his option (c). But that would require a showdown with Xykon, which he has no guarantee of winning, and he knows that if he loses then Xykon will immediately massacre all of Gobbotopia out of spite.
> 
> So, given that option (b) is an offer from his enemies, and option (c) is ludicrously risky on top of being just a consolation prize, I really think it is rational for Redcloak to choose option (a), continuing with The Plan.


I agree with this. Redcloak's reasoning is based on what he knows, and he is not aware of many things.

But that's not what makes it a sunk cost fallacy.

Let's reason things through from Redcloak's perspective.
Goblins were created as canon fodder. The gods prevent them from becoming more than that by denying them access to the things they give freely to other races. The plan is to threaten the release of a god-destroying entity to blackmail them into granting... what? Better land? Wealth? The acceptance of other races into larger society?

Right-eye was doing all those things already. Right-eye was accomplishing what Redcloak says he wants. Redcloak killed Right-eye because Right-eye's success would ruin all his dreams of being the one to 'save goblinkind.'

The fallacy is that Redcloak had evidence of a better way to achieve the results he claimed to want, and rejected it in order to pursue The Plan. Killing his brother was the sunk cost that he can never recover, and stopping now after having paid that cost is no longer possible. No matter what it costs, now there is only one way forward. Even if it costs the whole world and every goblin in it.

----------


## Zalam

> I basically agree with you. Redcloak has deep-seated psychological issues that make him stick to The Plan, but, _even if he didn't,_ The Plan still would be the rational best choice as far as he knows. He has no reason to trust a single word that comes from Durkon or Minrah, and other than (a) The Plan or (b) trusting Durkon and Minrah, what other options does he have?
> 
> Well, the only other option would be to say that Gobbotopia is enough, the goblins already have their own independent nation in this world and he's going to go back and help with that instead of The Plan.
> 
> That would be his option (c). But that would require a showdown with Xykon, which he has no guarantee of winning, and he knows that if he loses then Xykon will immediately massacre all of Gobbotopia out of spite.
> 
> So, given that option (b) is an offer from his enemies, and option (c) is ludicrously risky on top of being just a consolation prize, I really think it is rational for Redcloak to choose option (a), continuing with The Plan.



Here's a thought for (d):

_Check to see if they're being honest_. You don't have to trust them to check to see if they're lying. Kinda the opposite.


He's demonstrably mired in a sunk cost fallacy because not only didn't he "trust them", he went straight to "can't possibly be true, so I will try to murder them and will definitely, absolutely not even spend a single second trying to work out if the offer was truly being made in good faith and has a better chance of success than my current plan".


Because, well, he might not have _the preponderance of evidence_ to trust Durkon and Minrah - he only has their word - but he didn't _try_ to get any evidence. Having been alerted to the possibility that he might be wrong in an unexpected avenue, he refused to check.

And once they got away... he doubled down. The Modron is being kept in the dark, when he could have used the spell to summon something he could have trusted (say, a powerful servant of the Dark One) and could have directed some questions at. He could have pulled Oona aside and filled her (even partially) in on the conversation and asked her to take a message to the Dark One if she gets killed, since her death (and subsequent resurrection by himself) could plausibly happen in the dangerous dungeons they're planning on blitzing through. He could make a plan to, next time he gets spells, spam every information-gathering spell he has access to (instead, they're escalating to "maximum speed dungeon crawling", which means spells spent checking things could get him killed).

He could have done a lot of things... but he rejected the possibility that he was wrong out of hand, because he truly lives in the Village of I Was Right All Along.


tl;dr: Yes, based on the _facts_ he has, his plan is still correct. But he's deliberately avoiding seeking out new facts after being given a hypothesis that competes with his own model of events.


And it's a very human reaction. But not one conducive to good outcomes.

----------


## FireJustice

Don't know if people put light on the issue why it's a fallacy.


Sunk Cost fallacy involves justifying changing a strategy using it's already s*unken cost* as "argument" for why its  hence a *fallacy*.
when said sunken cost don't factually matter at all

"Too many people already died,if we change paths their deaths are in vain"
Classic, but you are keeping an strategy and putting meaning on deaths as an objective too.
The deaths in vain don't change the future outcome, just his own guilt

"I sacrificed too much already"
All sacrifices, can be "reverted" in some way.
Body parts can be regenerated. Relationships can be mended. Villains can seek rendemption.
Again, sacrificed in vain or not. Does this make a strategy more (in)viable?

"We come this far already, we already paid too much"
Same thing. If you don't know if your direction is the right path.
Stopping to find a landmark isn't bad.
Getting directions from someone isn't a bad strategy either.
Keep going blind just because you already walked many days in that direction, that's a sunken cost fallacy (and dumb behavior)

"Stick to the plan"
Yeah, your plan is full of holes. It's kept by spit and strings...
One curve ball and it all fall apart.

Sure, Gods can't be trusted you say.
But sure enough, you are counting them to act exactly the  the way you want after you put the fear of existence in their hearts...
using something like a god killer that you really hope you can control
allying yourself with a creature far stronger and with mood swings
So you can leverage something you don't even know yet if everythings goes according to the plan
instead of NOW.
good plan.

----------


## Edric O

> I agree with this. Redcloak's reasoning is based on what he knows, and he is not aware of many things.
> 
> But that's not what makes it a sunk cost fallacy.
> 
> Let's reason things through from Redcloak's perspective.
> Goblins were created as canon fodder. The gods prevent them from becoming more than that by denying them access to the things they give freely to other races. The plan is to threaten the release of a god-destroying entity to blackmail them into granting... what? Better land? Wealth? The acceptance of other races into larger society?
> 
> Right-eye was doing all those things already. Right-eye was accomplishing what Redcloak says he wants. Redcloak killed Right-eye because Right-eye's success would ruin all his dreams of being the one to 'save goblinkind.'
> 
> The fallacy is that Redcloak had evidence of a better way to achieve the results he claimed to want, and rejected it in order to pursue The Plan. Killing his brother was the sunk cost that he can never recover, and stopping now after having paid that cost is no longer possible. No matter what it costs, now there is only one way forward. Even if it costs the whole world and every goblin in it.


Wait... You've got a _sunk cost_ there, but no _fallacy_.

For Redcloak's actions to be a _fallacy_, he would need to have _an option to return to what Right-eye was doing_, yet choose to ignore that option because he doesn't want to admit he was wrong. In other words, Redcloak is only engaged in a fallacy if he can freely choose to stop doing what he's currently doing, yet does not choose this because of psychological reasons.

But my point is that Redcloak *cannot*, in fact, freely choose to stop doing what he's currently doing. It's not just his own mind that's keeping him stuck on his current path, there's also an Epic Lich in the way. Redcloak can't just quit, even if he wanted to.

----------


## Edric O

> Here's a thought for (d):
> 
> _Check to see if they're being honest_. You don't have to trust them to check to see if they're lying. Kinda the opposite.
> 
> [...]
> 
> tl;dr: Yes, based on the _facts_ he has, his plan is still correct. But he's deliberately avoiding seeking out new facts after being given a hypothesis that competes with his own model of events.
> 
> And it's a very human reaction. But not one conducive to good outcomes.


I agree. He is obviously making a mistake.

But his mistake isn't the _sunk cost fallacy._ It's a different kind of mistake. The sunk cost fallacy would be if he _knew_ a better course of action existed but chose not to pursue it because "I've invested too much in my current plan to give up on it now." As far as he knows, however, no better course of action exists.

Stubbornly refusing to consider that you might have the wrong facts isn't the sunk cost fallacy. It's... well I don't know if there's a specific name for it, but in any case it's a different error.

Hubris, perhaps?

----------


## hroþila

> Wait... You've got a _sunk cost_ there, but no _fallacy_.
> 
> For Redcloak's actions to be a _fallacy_, he would need to have _an option to return to what Right-eye was doing_, yet choose to ignore that option because he doesn't want to admit he was wrong. In other words, Redcloak is only engaged in a fallacy if he can freely choose to stop doing what he's currently doing, yet does not choose this because of psychological reasons.
> 
> But my point is that Redcloak *cannot*, in fact, freely choose to stop doing what he's currently doing. It's not just his own mind that's keeping him stuck on his current path, there's also an Epic Lich in the way. Redcloak can't just quit, even if he wanted to.


But the point is, he _doesn't_ want to. He didn't quit when the Epic lich was at his mercy, he didn't quit when Right-Eye presented him with a seemingly viable alternative, he made no attempt to win Tsukiko over to replace Xykon, he made no attempt to nurse a browncloak as a potential replacement, he did nothing to let his enemies do the job for him. Redcloak is still engaged in a fallacy even if he can't act at this precise instant, because his thought process and his feelings are independent from and precede his actions, and they are deeply rooted in the sunk cost fallacy and in his need to prove to himself that his decisions were the right ones and that he's not to blame.

----------


## Manga Shoggoth

> But the point is, he _doesn't_ want to. He didn't quit when the Epic lich was at his mercy, he didn't quit when Right-Eye presented him with a seemingly viable alternative, he made no attempt to win Tsukiko over to replace Xykon, he made no attempt to nurse a browncloak as a potential replacement, he did nothing to let his enemies do the job for him. Redcloak is still engaged in a fallacy even if he can't act at this precise instant, because his thought process and his feelings are independent from and precede his actions, and they are deeply rooted in the sunk cost fallacy and in his need to prove to himself that his decisions were the right ones and that he's not to blame.


Epic lich at his mercy? Well, sort of, except he still needs the high-level sorcerer, and Xykon was still the only one available.

Right-Eye? Redcloak was on the verge of accepting that until Xykon turned up with a "join me or everyone dies" offer. (If you mean the assasination attempt, well that was in the middle of a combat which would have been good for the assasination attempt, but with a really bad outlook if it failed, and not a very good one if it succeeded)

Tsukiko? No point in even trying - she was a delusional teenager fixated on Xykon as a romantic ideal.

Grooming a replacement? He doesn't seem to be doing much for that, I agree - but He might simply be reluctant to dump someone else with the mess.

Need to prove himself/shift blame? Yes, there is a large element of self-justification in Redcloak's narrative, but I don't think it's really sunk cost when there's very little in the way of alternatives. Recruiting Xykon wasn't a bad decision, Lychifying him was a bad one, but taken when he had little alternative.

Gobbotopia is really the only alternative Redcloak has, but it is not yet proven to be stable and even that is threatened if Xykon decides to go even further off the deep end and obliterate it in revenge. 

Redcloak's situation is less sunk cost fallacy and more tiger by the tail with a side order of tunnel vision. He may have a way of obliterating Xykon, but he can only use that once, at the cost of losing the epic-level sorcerer he needs and at the cost of losing everything if he fails. So he'd better be pretty certian that he wants to use it.

----------


## Fyraltari

> Epic lich at his mercy? Well, sort of, except he still needs the high-level sorcerer, and Xykon was still the only one available.


Please. No arcane caster would be an improvement over Xykon after Dorukan's Dungeon. Xykon actively murders goblins for fun. There are other arcane casters in the world. Yes, it'd take time to find one suitable, but Redcloak literally doesn't age. He is in no hurry. 




> Gobbotopia is really the only alternative Redcloak has, but it is not yet proven to be stable and even that is threatened if Xykon decides to go even further off the deep end and obliterate it in revenge.


Wow, it's almost as if the biggest threat to the cause right now is the Bone-Lord himself. 



> Redcloak's situation is less sunk cost fallacy and more tiger by the tail with a side order of tunnel vision. He may have a way of obliterating Xykon, but he can only use that once, at the cost of losing the epic-level sorcerer he needs and at the cost of losing everything if he fails. So he'd better be pretty certian that he wants to use it.


Redcloak does not need an epic sorcerer, just a moderately high-level  arcane mage. Team Evil routinely surrounds themselves with troops that are loyal to Redcloak, not Xykon and Redcloak knows Xykon's abilities exactly. The simple fact that he hasn't made a single assassination attempt is proof enough that he just doesn't want to get rid of Xykon despite all the harm he's doing to the goblins Redcloak professes to care about.

----------


## Peelee

> Wait... You've got a _sunk cost_ there, but no _fallacy_.
> 
> For Redcloak's actions to be a _fallacy_, he would need to have _an option to return to what Right-eye was doing_, yet choose to ignore that option because he doesn't want to admit he was wrong. In other words, Redcloak is only engaged in a fallacy if he can freely choose to stop doing what he's currently doing, yet does not choose this because of psychological reasons.
> 
> But my point is that Redcloak *cannot*, in fact, freely choose to stop doing what he's currently doing. It's not just his own mind that's keeping him stuck on his current path, there's also an Epic Lich in the way. Redcloak can't just quit, even if he wanted to.


I largely stay out of this thread, but no. Redcloak is very explicitly given this choice in Start of Darkness.

----------


## brian 333

> Wait... You've got a _sunk cost_ there, but no _fallacy_.
> 
> For Redcloak's actions to be a _fallacy_, he would need to have _an option to return to what Right-eye was doing_, yet choose to ignore that option because he doesn't want to admit he was wrong. In other words, Redcloak is only engaged in a fallacy if he can freely choose to stop doing what he's currently doing, yet does not choose this because of psychological reasons.
> 
> But my point is that Redcloak *cannot*, in fact, freely choose to stop doing what he's currently doing. It's not just his own mind that's keeping him stuck on his current path, there's also an Epic Lich in the way. Redcloak can't just quit, even if he wanted to.


Redcloak seems to be confident that he can deal with Xykon at his convenience. Holding a lich's phylactery is one heck of an advantage.

He could have used his brother's attack to take out Xykon.
He could have used the duel with Dorukan to initiate an attack on Xykon.
He could have used Roy's destruction of Xykon to eliminate Xykon with no risk at all.
He could have helped the ghost martyrs kill Xykon, or he could have simply stopped Miko from destroying the gate so the GMs could finish the job.

By these skipped opportunities I conclude that Redcloak chooses to work with Xykon. He does not want any option but the one he chose before he ever innitiated the attack on Lyrian's Gate.

A plan unchanged, that he refuses to modify after multiple failures: fallacy.

A set of goals the plan is supposed to achieve, which have been demonstrated to be achievable by other means, still being pursued by a plan which has failed four times. Fallacy.

A key person, required to fulfill the plan, whose actions to date indicate that he is actually opposed to the goals of the plan, being retained after multiple opportunities to remove and replace him with someone more malleable: big fallacy.

Both the Sunk Cost and the Fallacy are in play here, and both are repeatedly and obviously made known to Redcloak and rejected because The Plan Must Succeed To Prove I Was Right.

(Not for the betterment of goblinkind, his stated goal.)

----------


## Edric O

> I largely stay out of this thread, but no. Redcloak is very explicitly given this choice in Start of Darkness.


_In Start of Darkness_, yes. But how many decades ago was that? My point was about present-day Redcloak. Even if he changed his mind at some point during these years and wanted to undo his mistakes from SoD, it's too late now. He can't. The options he had back then, no longer exist.

----------


## Edric O

> Redcloak seems to be confident that he can deal with Xykon at his convenience. Holding a lich's phylactery is one heck of an advantage.


What makes you think he's confident he can deal with Xykon _at his convenience?_ He has contingency measures in place (like holding the phylactery) just in case he needs them, but he seems to be more confident that he won't need them (because he imagines himself to be a master manipulator), than confident that _they will work_.




> He could have used his brother's attack to take out Xykon.
> He could have used the duel with Dorukan to initiate an attack on Xykon.
> He could have used Roy's destruction of Xykon to eliminate Xykon with no risk at all.
> He could have helped the ghost martyrs kill Xykon, or he could have simply stopped Miko from destroying the gate so the GMs could finish the job.


All of those opportunities happened before Gobbotopia was established.

With the exception of the first one, they happened during times when no viable alternative to The Plan - or even a meager substitute for The Plan - was available to Redcloak.

----------


## InvisibleBison

> _In Start of Darkness_, yes. But how many decades ago was that?


Right-Eye's assassination attempt on Xykon was six months before the start of the comic, about a year and half before the current comic.

----------


## brian 333

> All of those opportunities happened before Gobbotopia was established.
> 
> With the exception of the first one, they happened during times when no viable alternative to The Plan - or even a meager substitute for The Plan - was available to Redcloak.


They happened after Right-eye was accomplishing what Redcloak claimed The Plan was supposed to accomplish.

He killed the bird in his hand and went chasing the five in the bush.

----------


## Manga Shoggoth

> A key person, required to fulfill the plan, whose actions to date indicate that he is actually opposed to the goals of the plan, being retained after multiple opportunities to remove and replace him with someone more malleable: big fallacy.


You mean the high level magic user they had already been looking for without success for Redcloak's entire tenure, and (presumably) the tenure of all his predecessors? They need (a) a high level magic user (sorcerer in this case) who is (b) willing to work with them rather than obliterate them. 

High-level magic users are rare, ones prepared to work with goblins are apparantly even rarer.

Pre-lichification Xykon was literally the only one they found, and then largely because he was already in advanced age and wanted to achieve something before he died. They already knew he was somewhat kill-happy - but it only really became a major issue after lychification.

Incidentally it was Right-eye who was in favour of recruiting him - Readcloak was still prepared to keep looking for a goblinoid magic user despite the complete lack of success in that area.

Oh, and please remember: While Gobbotopia is good thing (from Redcloak's point of view, at least), it is a red herring in the "sunk cost" arguement. Redcloak is still a priest of The Dark One, following a divinely ordaned plan. The plan is about The Dark One forcing serious consessions out of the other Gods, not about founding a major goblinoid settlement.

The new options for doing this (the Four Colour Theorem) have literally only been brought to Redcloak's attention very recently. He's barely had a chance to think about them. That he rejected them out-of-hand the first time is not surprising - in fact from his viewpoint he's still in with a good chance if they can get hold of a gate. Yes, he's been told of the dangers, by one of his enemies who could simply be lying. Yes, we know that Durkon was telling the truth, but Redcloak doesn't.

----------


## Fyraltari

> You mean the high level magic user they had already been looking for without success for Redcloak's entire tenure, and (presumably) the tenure of all his predecessors? They need (a) a high level magic user (sorcerer in this case) who is (b) willing to work with them rather than obliterate them. 
> 
> High-level magic users are rare, ones prepared to work with goblins are apparantly even rarer.
> 
> 
> Pre-lichification Xykon was literally the only one they found, and then largely because he was already in advanced age and wanted to achieve something before he died. They already knew he was somewhat kill-happy - but it only really became a major issue after lychification.


No. Goblinoids high-level arcane casters are rare. Xykon was literally the first non-goblinoid one they asked. I'm sure there are plenty of Miron Shewdanker they could buy off with promises of wealth and power.





> Oh, and please remember: While Gobbotopia is good thing (from Redcloak's point of view, at least), it is a red herring in the "sunk cost" arguement. Redcloak is still a priest of The Dark One, following a divinely ordaned plan. The plan is about The Dark One forcing serious consessions out of the other Gods, not about founding a major goblinoid settlement.


And the Dark One's plan doesn't involve working with an out-of-control team-killing maniac either and yet, here we are.

----------


## Manga Shoggoth

> No. Goblinoids high-level arcane casters are rare. Xykon was literally the first non-goblinoid one they asked. I'm sure there are plenty of Miron Shewdanker they could buy off with promises of wealth and power.
> 
> And the Dark One's plan doesn't involve working with an out-of-control team-killing maniac either and yet, here we are.


I suspect Goblinoid high-level arcane casters are pretty much non-existent. I'm not sure why Readcloak was trying to find one (I had forgotten that it was Right-Eye who came up with the idea of hiring him...)

High-level casters are still rare, and ones interested in working with Goblins will be still rarer. And once they started with Xykon and then lichified him they were stuck with him. Oh, and I do believe I mentioned the tiger by the tail?

----------


## Fyraltari

> High-level casters are still rare, and ones interested in working with Goblins will be still rarer. And once they started with Xykon and then lichified him they were stuck with him.


Literally the first evil caster they asked was ball.

Also, they were only stuck with him because Redcloak refuses to do anything to be rid of him. Right-Eye came up with a decent assassination plan by himself, the two of them working together and using the other minions properly could have been a match for Xykon, he's not invicible.

----------


## BloodSquirrel

> Oh, and please remember: While Gobbotopia is good thing (from Redcloak's point of view, at least), it is a red herring in the "sunk cost" arguement. Redcloak is still a priest of The Dark One, following a divinely ordaned plan. The plan is about The Dark One forcing serious consessions out of the other Gods, not about founding a major goblinoid settlement.


This is exactly what the sunk cost fallacy entails: Ignoring an alternative option (Gobbotopia) because the _The Plan_ must continue, even when the cost/benefit analysis no longer favors it.




> No. Goblinoids high-level arcane casters are rare. Xykon was literally the first non-goblinoid one they asked. I'm sure there are plenty of Miron Shewdanker they could buy off with promises of wealth and power.


I'm not so sure about that. They need a high-level arcane caster- something which requires, if not intelligence, at least some level of cunning and a great deal of adventuring experience, who is willing to cast a ritual which they don't fully understand but know involves a god-killing abomination, and is willing to do so for the benefit of a goblin who is actively seeking to establish a world order in which their race will be slaves and is still not going to be worried that said goblin might be planning on betraying him. 

Xykon was the first non-goblinoid they asked because he was the first non-goblinoid they came across who was:
A) Chaotic evil enough to murder a fort full of paladins for the lulz
B) Powerful enough to be confident that he would be in charge
C) Careless enough not to be duly skeptical
D) Bored enough to listen to them in the first place
E) Had no existing allies/patrons that would object

There are a lot of hard checks that, if not passed, will rule someone out, and they tend to require things that are not very mutually compatible. Anyone who has survived long enough to reach a position of power among a bunch of evil industry is usually going to have cultivated a sense of paranoia and a nose for sniffing out when they're being manipulated. They also probably have an existing power base, allies, and aren't going to be too keen on abandoning a known quantity for this rando goblin. Miron Shewdanker is more likely to react like Tarquin did: "Sounds like a bad idea, no thanks". Hell, he wasn't even willing to help Tarquin out until Tarquin called in his favor. 

Oh, and if they pitch this plan to someone and they say 'no', then they've got a wee bit of a problem because now that person knows about the plan and is almost certainly going to recognize them as a threat. I can pretty easily see Miron ratting him out to the Sapphire Guard at very least, if not killing him on the spot. Xykon would have killed them on the spot if their names had just been too hard to pronounce. If he hadn't said "yes", they wouldn't have lived long enough to try asking someone else.

They got lucky with Xykon. He had the exact combination of laziness, power, maliciousness, and cunning-when-he-needs-to-be-so-that-he-didn't-get-killed-a-long-time-ago that they needed. He was ambitious enough to say 'yes', but not ambitious enough to have some other scheme already in the works. He genuinely cared about nothing but himself, and had zero hang-ups about the potential consequences for things going wrong. Maybe there is someone else out there in the world who would go along with it, but it's at least as likely that there isn't.

----------


## brian 333

*Spoiler: Manga said...*
Show




> You mean the high level magic user they had already been looking for without success for Redcloak's entire tenure, and (presumably) the tenure of all his predecessors? They need (a) a high level magic user (sorcerer in this case) who is (b) willing to work with them rather than obliterate them. 
> 
> High-level magic users are rare, ones prepared to work with goblins are apparantly even rarer.
> 
> Pre-lichification Xykon was literally the only one they found, and then largely because he was already in advanced age and wanted to achieve something before he died. They already knew he was somewhat kill-happy - but it only really became a major issue after lychification.
> 
> Incidentally it was Right-eye who was in favour of recruiting him - Readcloak was still prepared to keep looking for a goblinoid magic user despite the complete lack of success in that area.
> 
> Oh, and please remember: While Gobbotopia is good thing (from Redcloak's point of view, at least), it is a red herring in the "sunk cost" arguement. Redcloak is still a priest of The Dark One, following a divinely ordaned plan. The plan is about The Dark One forcing serious consessions out of the other Gods, not about founding a major goblinoid settlement.
> ...





This conflates the means with the ends. The Plan is the means: the method of accomplishing the end goal. What are the goals of The Plan? What is expected to be the outcome?

1) The Dark One wants equality with the other gods.
He already has it. In fact, as a pantheon into himself he is more equal than the other gods.

2) The Plan is expected to give goblinkind equality with the other races.
In the circus scene goblins were present. There was even a parent and child, and nobody was attacking them or shunning them. They were just part of the crowd, and nobody seemed to care.

3) The Plan is expected to gain concessions of good land for the goblins.
Funny thing: there is no such thing as bad land, only bad land management. Farmers work constantly to improve land. Harvesting with an eye to future harvests rather than digging up every plant and allowing weathering to carry off whatever arable soil is available is a requirement, or the most lush, productive lands in the world become sterile. (Aral Sea.)
Right-eye's village was doing this. To at least some degree the Hobgoblin State was doing this as well, or they would not have had the means to feed their legions.

So, what end goal that The Plan is designed to accomplish has not already been demonstrated to be within the reach of goblinkind and their God?

In the movie 'The Wizard Of Oz' Dorothy crossed Oz from East to West on a quest to get home, only to discover that she had the ability to do so from the beginning. Her entire quest was a waste of time and effort.

This is the situation Redcloak is in. He could have everything The Plan is supposed to accomplish simply by abandoning it. In fact, even knowing only what he knew before Durkon spoke to him, he could have figured it out. Pursuing the plan has a good chance of getting the world destroyed; this also is apparent with a little thought on the subject.

One can only conclude that Redcloak is not following The Plan to achieve it's goals, but because he would have to admit that every sacrifice he offered was a waste. He cannot admit that he was wrong. He cannot admit that there is a better way. He cannot admit that others were accomplishing what he dreamed of doing. He ignores anything that proves him wrong, because he would rather destroy the world than admit he murdered his brother for nothing.

He cannot admit that Right-eye was right and he was wrong. Therefore, The Plan must continue to the bitter end, regardless of what its results might be.

----------


## BloodSquirrel

> This is the situation Redcloak is in. He could have everything The Plan is supposed to accomplish simply by abandoning it. In fact, even knowing only what he knew before Durkon spoke to him, he could have figured it out. Pursuing the plan has a good chance of getting the world destroyed; this also is apparent with a little thought on the subject.
> 
> One can only conclude that Redcloak is not following The Plan to achieve it's goals, but because he would have to admit that every sacrifice he offered was a waste. He cannot admit that he was wrong. He cannot admit that there is a better way. He cannot admit that others were accomplishing what he dreamed of doing. He ignores anything that proves him wrong, because he would rather destroy the world than admit he murdered his brother for nothing.


You are forgetting one thing: Redcloak's _ostensive_ goals are not his _actual_ goals. Redcloak doesn't want equality, he wants dominance. He's driven by vindictiveness, not humanitarianism (goblinitarianism?). That's a big part of the reason his negotiations with Durkon had to end the way they did: he was backed into a corner where he couldn't excuse not taking Durkon's offer without admitting to what he really wanted.

_The Plan_ isn't going to get him either, of course- Redcloak is still engaging in the sunken cost fallacy, it's just not his only problem.

----------


## Kish

> Epic lich at his mercy? Well, sort of, except he still needs the high-level sorcerer,


Wait, please keep track of what you're arguing.

1) "He can't do what his brother was doing, because there's an epic lich in the way."
2) "He had the epic lich at his mercy and chose to keep doing what he's doing instead of doing what his brother was doing."
3) "He didn't really have the epic lich at his mercy because he needs the epic lich to succeed at what he's doing, which is not what his brother was doing."

So: he had a choice. He made that choice. It was to not do what his brother had been doing but to keep doing what he was doing, because he chose to, because he chose to protect Xykon as Xykon was loudly announcing that Redcloak was expendable and fun to humiliate. A choice. He wasn't forced to do it by an epic lich.

Exactly as Xykon spelled out would be the case from then on at the end of Start of Darkness, whatever long-winded and self-righteous verbiage Redcloak offers to the contrary, his actions have been aimed at: preserve Xykon's unlife as carefully ads he preserves his own life.

(There is also absolutely no reason, other than lingering pre-3ed assumptions or new 5ed ones, to assume that Redcloak could not continue the Plan with a browncloak from Gobbotopia to cast the arcane half of the ritual.)

----------


## asda fasda

I think it must be remembered that the main goal was for The Dark One to get more power in god'ly realm,   Redcloak is just executing The Dark One plans, So I wouldn't say he had that much choice to stay in Gobbotopia, as this would probably anger his god. 

but as for original question, the answer is yes: sunk cost fallacy is always a fallacy.
That's because fallacy is not whatever the option that was chosen is correct or not, it's about how you asses the options at hand, and that sunken cost doesn't matter, only the future cost and rewards.

*Spoiler: as BloodSquirrel brilliantly described*
Show





> You need a new computer. You spend $500 on a motherboard and graphics card (which you can't re-sell for some reason). The rest of the components will cost you another $1000. You then see that there is a pre-built computer for sale with the exact components that you wanted.
> 
> Case 1: The pre-built computer costs $1600. Building your own is still cheaper no matter what.
> Case 2: The pre-built computer costs $1400. It would have been cheaper to buy the pre-built computer from the start, but the current cost to finish your self-built computer is only $1000. You would be better off finishing your self-built computer.
> Case 3: The pre-built computer costs $900, which is less than the components you would need to finish your self-built computer. You would be better off buying the pre-built computer, even if it means completely wasting the motherboard and graphics card that you already bought. 
> 
> Neither case 1 (for obvious reasons) nor case 2 would qualify as a sunken cost fallacy if you decided to continue building your own computer. In case 2, it's still the cheapest option, even if that's only because you made a non-optimal decision in the first place.
> 
> A sunken cost fallacy, by definition, means that you are irrationally treating that $500 as if it will have only been "really wasted" if you buy the $900 computer, leading you to waste another $100 that you don't have to. In case #2, you aren't doing that. You're looking purely at the costs moving forward- $1000 versus $1400- and picking what is still the best option, even if it means that you wasted $100 overall.
> .









> Here is an example. (..)
> So far you have invested your time well, so you can afford at least 30 minutes to consider your options, but then you get absorbed in a specific line of moves for the majority of the duration and now you really cannot spend any more time considering the position. Yet all you have for the time spend is a very deep understanding of one move and the variations which follows, and a very shallow understanding of perhaps two other moves.
> You have realized that the move you spend the most time on will give you a position from which you have to fight for a draw if your opponent plays correctly, and you also know there are many ways your opponent can go wrong (perhaps the very reason you were lured to spend so much time on this particular move). However, presently, you see nothing wrong with one of the other moves you considered, and the third you decided to disregard completely, as it doesn't seem to be any good. Also you just discovered a fourth move that you haven't really looked at, but at first glance it does look like a forced win for you, or close to at least.
> 
> So what do you do? Please have in mind all moves are supposed to be very complicated, so you cannot be very confident in any other move than the one move you don't think is very good if your opponent plays well against it.
> 
> In my opinion the resources spend, is what should determine the outcome. In the chess example, if you know little to almost nothing of other candidate moves than the one you spend so much time on, isn't it a much larger risk to go for any other move then?
> Sometimes people play dubious openings in chess knowing they can be punished, but have so much preparation in hand, that it is unlikely to happen based on their current opponent. If this is a valid strategy, is it not also better to go for where your resources went, than to invest in avenues you haven't explored properly, even though at first sight they look so much more promising?


As for chess example the issue is that you shouldn't consider the resources spend, only the cost and rewards of those options. In this case it would be:
Option A (the one that was thoroughly analyzed): it has a probability of wining: x%, probability of draw y% (which I understand is the highest value) and probability of loss z%. With very low uncertainty of those probabilities.
Other options have higher level of winning probabilities but also higher uncertainty. 
This means that making the decision whether to "stick"* to your strategy or to go with a new one you should only evaluate the probabilities, uncertainties and resources (i.e. available time for analyzes and lowering the uncertainties), how much time you spend on analyzing the Option A doesn't really matter.

* "sticking" is not the best word, as it sounds that taking option A is somewhat different from the rest and the whole point of sunken cost fallacy is that it isn't

----------


## Edric O

> Right-Eye's assassination attempt on Xykon was six months before the start of the comic, about a year and half before the current comic.


Wait... really? I don't have SoD with me and I haven't read it in a long time. Did Right-Eye really die so recently? That implies that Redcloak's betrayal of his brother was a lot fresher in his mind in #701 than I imagined at the time.

(also, wow, I just realized that Redcloak has had that eyepatch for over 40% of the comic's entire run at this point; another issue in which my perception of time was off)

----------


## Fyraltari

> Wait... really? I don't have SoD with me and I haven't read it in a long time. Did Right-Eye really die so recently?


Yes, as a result Redcloak's very passive characterization in the first book is often headcannoned as the events of SoD having left him despondent until seeing Xykon get exploded gave him some of his funk back.

----------


## BaronOfHell

> As for chess example the issue is that you shouldn't consider the resources spend, only the cost and rewards of those options. In this case it would be:
> Option A (the one that was thoroughly analyzed): it has a probability of wining: x%, probability of draw y% (which I understand is the highest value) and probability of loss z%. With very low uncertainty of those probabilities.
> Other options have higher level of winning probabilities but also higher uncertainty. 
> This means that making the decision whether to "stick"* to your strategy or to go with a new one you should only evaluate the probabilities, uncertainties and resources (i.e. available time for analyzes and lowering the uncertainties), how much time you spend on analyzing the Option A doesn't really matter.


Thanks for contemplating my example. I actually had a similar situation in a chess game around Halloween. My opponent had moved the same piece multiple time in the opening to pressure a weak pawn.. and as such, there didn't seem to be anything wrong with the moves, because the justification was I had to react to his pressure.. but I really felt like sacrificing the pawn and get a nice lead in development.

So I spend a lot of time pondering the sacrifice.. I had also thought about covering my bases by guarding the pawn, and I felt I would get a game where my opponent would be pressuring me, but maybe I could defend it... on the other hand, sacrificing the pawn, and I might even win the game.. or just lose outright..

I ended up feeling the pressure of the clock, not because I spend all the time at once, but every move we got closer to the potential sacrifice I changed opinion about liking it or not as the position became more and more clear in my head, or to say I found previously undiscovered resources in the resulting position that either spoke for or against the sacrfice.
Finally I came to the conclusion I couldn't justify sacrificing the pawn. As said, the result of not sacrificing was a game were I was pressured, but then I suddenly actually got a pretty good position and my opponent had no chance of winning anymore.

In the after game analysis we talked about the possible pawn sacrifice and my opponent agreed that it was just a pawn up for him.

Then I looked at it on the computer, and it said anything I played was good, sacrificing the pawn or guarding it, it didn't really matter. 
I tried to look as far I could through the computer analysis of sacrificing the pawn, and in the ending position I was still down a pawn, and the computer claimed the position to be equal anyway.

----------


## brian 333

Weighing the options and coming to an incorrect conclusion is not a Sunk Cost Fallacy. It's just a mistake.

To be a Sunk Cost Fallacy one must refuse to examine any other option because of the price already paid in the current strategy.

In the chess example the strategy was reexamined every turn. Whether there was a better option not seen by the players is beside the point.

A sunk cost is more like a person adopting a fad weight loss diet. The diet is expensive, costing more than the dieter's usual food budget. The dieter tells everyone about this new diet and how great it is.

The dieter gains a pound a week on the new diet, but because of the money already spent and the social exposure, the dieter continues to use and promote the fad diet.

----------


## BaronOfHell

The idea was that the sunk cost is the time spend. Since both players have a limited amount of time it is a very real resource, which cannot be returned.

If the lines that follow from the move keeps on looking promising, the player is more likely to dwell on said move than to cover their bases. It might be close to a point in time where the player has to make their move that they realize they've lost a lot of time, potentially for nothing.

----------


## Breccia

There is a difference between a Sunk Cost and long-term planning. 

Option A: For every steel bar I bring to the blacksmith, I roll a single d20. If I get a 20, he gives me 500 gold. Otherwise I get nothing.
Option B: If I bring a total of 20 steel bars to the blacksmith, he'll pay me 500 gold.

In the next town over is a guy who sells steel bars for 50 gold. I have sixteen.

Option A would invoke the Sunk Cost Fallacy if, say, I turned in all 16 bars, rolled 16d20 and got _nothing_, and said "well I'm going to buy four more, I'm going to get that natural 20 eventually". There's no realistic reason to believe that the next four d20 rolls will get me a 20, and in fact the odds are I'll spend 200 gold and get nothing for it. Buying six, or ten, or _fifty_, wouldn't change that. You'll spend on average more than you get back and your previous failures don't change this if each turn-in is a separate roll.

Option B would not invoke the Sunk Cost Fallacy. I would say "well it will cost me 200 gold but I'll get 500 with no chance of error" I would buy exactly four bars, complete the quest, and get paid. 

Now these examples are opposite ends of the spectrum. I _think_ Redcloak _believes_ he's closer to Option B than A, though. Like brian 333 said, there is a difference between a Sunk Cost Fallacy, and just being wrong. Durkon's visit may have opened his eyes...too soon?...to the situation, but he didn't know that _eleven-hundred_ strips ago.

EDIT: Also I want to take on the chess analogy. It's not a mistake to sit and stare at the table for 2 hours, if before the match you saw your opponent chug a 64-oz soda, and they forfeit if they leave the table. There is only one gate left in play, and Team Goblin has it surrounded.

----------


## BloodSquirrel

> Weighing the options and coming to an incorrect conclusion is not a Sunk Cost Fallacy. It's just a mistake.


As I've stated before, it's not quite that clear-cut. Someone suffering from the sunk cost fallacy will likely engage in backwards reasoning- starting from the position the fallacy is compelling them to take and coming up with a justification for it.

This is what Redcloak is doing. He isn't sticking with the plan because he's made an unrelated error in his logic- he's using highly flawed reasoning to justify sticking with the plan because he's emotionally attached to it. He's weighing his options with his entire foot on the scale, making whatever assumptions he has to in order to disregard any other conclusions.

----------


## Manga Shoggoth

> Wait, please keep track of what you're arguing.
> 
> 1) "He can't do what his brother was doing, because there's an epic lich in the way."
> 2) "He had the epic lich at his mercy and chose to keep doing what he's doing instead of doing what his brother was doing."
> 3) "He didn't really have the epic lich at his mercy because he needs the epic lich to succeed at what he's doing, which is not what his brother was doing."


I have kept track of my arguements, thank you.

The time I am referring to Redcloak having Xykon at his mercy (and to my knowledge. the only time) was when he was blown to pieces when thrown in to the gate at the dungeon of Durkon, and had to regenerate from the phylactery. Nothing to do with Right-Eye's assasination attempt at all.

And all the way through, Redcloak has need an arcane caster willing to work with him. Xykon is the only game in town. Before lichification it would have been easy to deal with him (and it was discussed in comic). After lichification he became more of a nightmare (which is where I invoke "tiger by the tail"). Still need him, dangerous to get rid of him.





> (There is also absolutely no reason, other than lingering pre-3ed assumptions or new 5ed ones, to assume that Redcloak could not continue the Plan with a browncloak from Gobbotopia to cast the arcane half of the ritual.)


It is openly stated (pages 44 and 45 SOD, if you are interested) that a sufficiently powerful arcane and divine spellcaster is required - that implies high level (although not necessarly epic). Redcloak clearly had not found an arcane caster of sufficient power among the Goblinoids, and given goblinoid survivability and lifespan, is unlikley to find one either. Right-Eye saw better than him there, as he does not seem to be quite as blindly anti-non-goblinoid as Redcloak - and to be fair to him, pre-lichification Xykon wasn't a terrible choice.

----------


## halfeye

> And all the way through, Redcloak has need an arcane caster willing to work with him. Xykon is the only game in town.


We have seen several. Myron and Laurin from Tarquin's group, Tsukiko, the elder black dragon, I'm probably forgetting some.

----------


## BloodSquirrel

> We have seen several. Myron and Laurin from Tarquin's group, Tsukiko, the elder black dragon, I'm probably forgetting some.


None of those people have indicated that they were willing to work with Redcloak. Tsukiko was there for Xykon, and her and Redcloak were out for each other from the start.

Just being evil does not put someone on Redcloak's side.

----------


## Fyraltari

> Just being evil does not put someone on Redcloak's side.


It put Xykon there, though.

Like is the argument, evil casters won't work for Redcloak because they're racists? Coz' Xykon isn't exactly sympathetic to the plight of goblinhood either, and Miron, who seems to be concerned chiefly by riches, was fine working with a vampire, who have an even worse reputation than goblins, however deserved.

----------


## Manga Shoggoth

> It put Xykon there, though.
> 
> Like is the argument, evil casters won't work for Redcloak because they're racists? Coz' Xykon isn't exactly sympathetic to the plight of goblinhood either, and Miron, who seems to be concerned chiefly by riches, was fine working with a vampire, who have an even worse reputation than goblins, however deserved.


Up until Xykon, Redcloak had exclusively been looking at non-goblinoids - if you want to make the racist arguement, you have to start with him. Xykon was willing to work with Redcloak, and he was the first non-goblinoid they tried. And once he was lichified, Xykon was intrenched. 

"Not working for Redcoak" doesn't have to mean "racist against goblinoids" - Miron and Laurin were running a country (and behind the scenes helping run a continent), Tsukiko saw Redcloak as a rival (and Xykon's stooge), the Black Dragon would probably ignited (or acidified? I forget which...) intruders in the cave... It's almost as if most high-level arcane casters would have better things to do than help out an army of goblins...

...Besides, none of them were ever in a position to be asked, even if Redcloak had been open to asking a non-goblinoid, which if SOD is anything to go by, he wasn't.

----------


## Fyraltari

> Up until Xykon, Redcloak had exclusively been looking at non-goblinoids - if you want to make the racist arguement, you have to start with him. Xykon was willing to work with Redcloak, and he was the first non-goblinoid they tried.


Yes, so it seems they could have found someone else, relatively easily. It would have taken a handful of years, maybe.



> And once he was lichified, Xykon was intrenched.


Nope.




> "Not working for Redcoak" doesn't have to mean "racist against goblinoids" - Myron and Laurin were running a country (and behind the scenes helping run a continent), Tsukiko saw Redcloak as a rival (and Xykon's stooge), the Black Dragon would probably ignited (or acidified? I forget which...) intruders in the cave... It's almost as if most high-level arcane casters would have better things to do than help out an army of goblins...


It's a world where walking into a random tavern is enough to find around a dozen adventurers of approximately your level. It literally happens in SoD. You'll excuse me for thinking it wouldn't be impossible to find an evil caster willing to join up on the promise of world domination.

Also, Miron's name is spelled with an "i".

----------


## Manga Shoggoth

> Yes, so it seems they could have found someone else, relatively easily. It would have taken a handful of years, maybe.


And yet, neither Redcloak, nor any of his predecessors, managed to do so. I really don't think it's as easy as you make it out to be.

(And not just on Redcloak's side - remember how difficult was it for Haley to find someone to do the Roy's resurrection once Durkon was gone?)





> Also, Miron's name is spelled with an "i".


It is indeed - corrected.

Also in the news (and the previous post), phialctary is spelled phylactery. I've corrected that one as well (It's all greek to me...)

----------


## Fyraltari

> And yet, neither Redcloak, nor any of his predecessors, managed to do so. I really don't think it's as easy as you make it out to be.


We don't know anything about what his predecessors did.




> (And not just on Redcloak's side - remember how difficult was it for Haley to find someone to do the Roy's resurrection once Durkon was gone?)


Do you mean while she was in hiding in an occupied city or when she was being stonewalled by the guy in whose basement she was staying?

----------


## BloodSquirrel

> Like is the argument, evil casters won't work for Redcloak because they're racists? Coz' Xykon isn't exactly sympathetic to the plight of goblinhood either, and Miron, who seems to be concerned chiefly by riches, was fine working with a vampire, who have an even worse reputation than goblins, however deserved.


Evil casters won't work for Redcloak because it's not in their self-interest. I already went through it in detail above- Redcloak had to lie to Xkyon to get him to go along, and most casters who have lived long enough to be sufficiently powerful and experienced while working with other evil power brokers are going to be a little more suspicious than Xykon was. 

Also, given how racist _Redcloak_ is, they've got a lot of reason not to trust him right off the bat. And even as evil as Malick and his (distance future) plans were, they don't hold a candle to what Redcloak is planning. Tarquin's gang is evil, but they're also pretty level-headed.

----------


## Manga Shoggoth

> We don't know anything about what his predecessors did.


We know something about what they didn't do, though. Not finding high-enough arcane casters, 'cause if they did the story would be over by now.




> Do you mean while she was in hiding in an occupied city or when she was being stonewalled by the guy in whose basement she was staying?


And while she was travelling around. The problem was that she literally did not know where to look.

----------


## halfeye

> Also, Miron's name is spelled with an "i".


Oops, my bad.

----------


## andowero

I think that truly fallacious people wouldn't consider other options. You described pretty rational thought process. I guess players more vulnerable to aforementioned fallacy would assign higher "value" to already explored path and would more likely ignore their shallow assessments of other, unexplored, paths. I imagine software developer that knows assembly very well and programs everything in assembly even though using higher level language would make him 100 times more faster "nah, it's not worth my time".

----------


## Manga Shoggoth

And it's not like Redcloak is ignoring the other options.

He took a year and a half getting Gobbotopia set up so it wouldn't immediately collapse from outside forces (or internal ones...). He would have taken longer, except Xykon got kicked into action.

As to the four-colour possibilities, it's the first he's heard of it, and from an enemy to boot. You can hardly blame him for rejecting it almost out of hand.

But the plan is the plan. Gobbotopia is nice, but it isn't part of the plan, and Gobbotopia could still fail. He's got no reason to stop going forward with the plan, which is supposed to be a more permanent solution. At least, not yet: we still have a book to get through.

----------


## gbaji

> As to the four-colour possibilities, it's the first he's heard of it, and from an enemy to boot. You can hardly blame him for rejecting it almost out of hand.
> 
> But the plan is the plan. Gobbotopia is nice, but it isn't part of the plan, and Gobbotopia could still fail. He's got no reason to stop going forward with the plan, which is supposed to be a more permanent solution. At least, not yet: we still have a book to get through.


Yeah. While there are certainly some behaviors by him that hint of sunk cost decision making, I also tend to come back to that same point. As far as we know, he honestly believes that "the plan" is the best shot for goblins in the long term. Gobbotopia is one invasion and/or internal conflict away from collapse. Those gains can be lost. The gains he believes he'll get from The Plan are long term and lasting.

So yeah, from his perspective it's still by far the best path he's got. And interestingly enough, I'm not sure it's actually completely doomed. The decision at the godsmoot was about deciding to destroy the world "right now" before the Snarl escapes, or to wait until the last gate is destroyed to do so, which Loki seemed confident would work, but may result in some loss of souls. I don't recall any specific decision by the gods about what to do if team evil actually succeeds in the ritual, despite apparently at least some gods knowing about it. So I guess he's got some justification to continue doing what he's doing.

Hard to say what, if anything, is going to turn him around at this point.

----------


## RobertaME

This is my first post in GitP, so bear with me...

One thing I see being misapplied in this discussion is the idea that Redcloak even _has_ a choice to not proceed forward with The Plan. He is the most powerful Cleric of the Dark One. All his authority and power comes from the god calling his shots... and it's the Dark One that wants The Plan to go forward. So long as that remains the case, Redcloak really _has_ no choice. Logic be damned, he's essentially being railroaded into The Plan by the Dark One. This also doesn't account for the effect of faith. Redcloak _trusts_ the Dark One implicitly and without question as a matter of faith. Even if his logic tells him there might be a better way, he won't consider it because the Dark One says that The Plan is his will. He really has no choice in the matter unless he's willing to go against the wishes of his god... which he isn't.

Realizing that, Thor's idea to have Redcloak convince the Dark One to help the other gods secure the Snarl was wagging the dog and doomed to failure. So long as the Dark One won't go along with it, neither will Redcloak. Trying to convince Redcloak to disobey the commands of his god in an effort to influence the Dark One to change his position was as ill-conceived as trying to get a Paladin to murder an innocent baby even if it would save the world. It just is never going to happen so long as they remain the people they are. Claiming that Thor should be able to see the flaw in asking Durkon to convince Redcloak to go along with the idea also defies the facts we know. The gods in OotS are very obviously flawed and limited beings, evidenced by the fact that Thor didn't even know about the world(s) in the rifts... and even failed to grasp the idea that the Dark One's Purple quiddity could let them trap the Snarl forever... so he's obviously capable of not seeing the fatal flaw in his own plan.

Regarding the idea that RC could get some other arcane caster other than Xykon... that's a rabbit hole of conjecture with insufficient supporting arguments either way. Xykon is who they have because it's who they have... for better or for worse. I don't have any of the books, so I only know that which is in the web comic... but I'm getting the impression that at one point in time RC had a choice to go with Xykon or keep looking for someone else. Even given that idea though, the fact that Xykon was the first choice doesn't invalidate the fact that the Dark One wants The Plan to proceed and therefore RC won't entertain any other options. Even when Xykon was weak and vulnerable after Dorukan's Gate, RC had to weigh the costs of getting rid of Xykon and finding a new arcane castor of appropriate level and willingness to aid The Plan versus sticking with 'the devil you know', so-to-speak. That's not so much a 'sunk cost' issue as it is a matter of practicality. At the time RC was in a vulnerable position; they'd already lost 2 of the 5 gates and _all_ their followers. It was down to just RC, Xykon, and the Monster in the Dark. (and a couple of demon-roaches) If he would have destroyed Xykon's phylactery then, the Monster in the Dark may well have eaten him since this was before the 'Mr. Stiffly' arc. (the fact that killing Xykon and looking for another arcane caster would have gotten the OotS off his back and rid him of a gobicidal maniac is beside the point... it's arm-chair quarterbacking with information RC couldn't possibly know)

TL/DR: By everything I can see, Redcloak doesn't _have_ any choice in continuing to pursue The Plan so long as it's what the Dark One wants. Lacking any real choice, this isn't a situation of him choosing the 'sunk cost fallacy' at all. Thor's idea to convince the Dark One to join the other gods in sealing up the rifts by convincing Redcloak, like most of Thor's ideas, is stupid. The Dark One has to be convinced its the best option _before_ Redcloak will even consider it.

But then, the story will be whatever Rich Burlew wants it to be... so... YMMV.

----------


## Reach Weapon

> Realizing that, Thor's idea to have Redcloak convince the Dark One to help the other gods secure the Snarl was wagging the dog and doomed to failure.


While I largely agree with your process and conclusions, it's well-demonstrated onscreen that the gods are shaped by their worshiper's beliefs and I imagine that as a very recent god, the Dark One would be more malleable than most.

While this is not something I'd expect the story to explore, as a hero to Gobbotopia and the high priest, Redcloak could arguably change his god more forcefully and directly than his god could do the reverse, at least if the Dark One was held to the inter-pantheonic rules previously established.

----------


## brian 333

> *Spoiler: excellent post*
> Show
> 
> This is my first post in GitP, so bear with me...
> 
> One thing I see being misapplied in this discussion is the idea that Redcloak even _has_ a choice to not proceed forward with The Plan. He is the most powerful Cleric of the Dark One. All his authority and power comes from the god calling his shots... and it's the Dark One that wants The Plan to go forward. So long as that remains the case, Redcloak really _has_ no choice. Logic be damned, he's essentially being railroaded into The Plan by the Dark One. This also doesn't account for the effect of faith. Redcloak _trusts_ the Dark One implicitly and without question as a matter of faith. Even if his logic tells him there might be a better way, he won't consider it because the Dark One says that The Plan is his will. He really has no choice in the matter unless he's willing to go against the wishes of his god... which he isn't.
> 
> Realizing that, Thor's idea to have Redcloak convince the Dark One to help the other gods secure the Snarl was wagging the dog and doomed to failure. So long as the Dark One won't go along with it, neither will Redcloak. Trying to convince Redcloak to disobey the commands of his god in an effort to influence the Dark One to change his position was as ill-conceived as trying to get a Paladin to murder an innocent baby even if it would save the world. It just is never going to happen so long as they remain the people they are. Claiming that Thor should be able to see the flaw in asking Durkon to convince Redcloak to go along with the idea also defies the facts we know. The gods in OotS are very obviously flawed and limited beings, evidenced by the fact that Thor didn't even know about the world(s) in the rifts... and even failed to grasp the idea that the Dark One's Purple quiddity could let them trap the Snarl forever... so he's obviously capable of not seeing the fatal flaw in his own plan.
> 
> ...


Well reasoned post, but you are affirming that Redcloak's acts have nothing to do with what's best for goblinkind, which is his stated goal.

----------


## BloodSquirrel

> This is my first post in GitP, so bear with me...
> 
> One thing I see being misapplied in this discussion is the idea that Redcloak even _has_ a choice to not proceed forward with The Plan. He is the most powerful Cleric of the Dark One. All his authority and power comes from the god calling his shots... and it's the Dark One that wants The Plan to go forward. So long as that remains the case, Redcloak really _has_ no choice. Logic be damned, he's essentially being railroaded into The Plan by the Dark One. This also doesn't account for the effect of faith. Redcloak _trusts_ the Dark One implicitly and without question as a matter of faith. Even if his logic tells him there might be a better way, he won't consider it because the Dark One says that The Plan is his will. He really has no choice in the matter unless he's willing to go against the wishes of his god... which he isn't.
> 
> Realizing that, Thor's idea to have Redcloak convince the Dark One to help the other gods secure the Snarl was wagging the dog and doomed to failure. So long as the Dark One won't go along with it, neither will Redcloak. Trying to convince Redcloak to disobey the commands of his god in an effort to influence the Dark One to change his position was as ill-conceived as trying to get a Paladin to murder an innocent baby even if it would save the world. It just is never going to happen so long as they remain the people they are. Claiming that Thor should be able to see the flaw in asking Durkon to convince Redcloak to go along with the idea also defies the facts we know. The gods in OotS are very obviously flawed and limited beings, evidenced by the fact that Thor didn't even know about the world(s) in the rifts... and even failed to grasp the idea that the Dark One's Purple quiddity could let them trap the Snarl forever... so he's obviously capable of not seeing the fatal flaw in his own plan.


Two problems here:

1) Clerics have more agency than you're giving them credit for. In fact, clerics have to go out of their way to commune with their gods at all, and Redcloak has directly stated that he's never spoken to The Dark One. _The Plan_ is _The Plan_ to Redcloak, but for all we know The Dark One might just see it as _a plan_, and if a better opportunity comes up, he might go for it (I personally think it's much more likely that The Dark One wants power above all else, and isn't some benevolent protector of goblinkind, but Redcloak is working under the opposite assumption). 

2) The reason that Thor is going through Redcloak isn't because he can't convince The Dark One, it's because he can't even talk to The Dark One. They have no means of directly communicating because the gods have set up a complex and indirect system of conflict resolution to avoid creating another snarl, and The Dark One doesn't have a place in it. That's the reason they're bothering with the Godsmoot after all, instead of just getting together themselves in the astral realm. The Dark One doesn't even have a comprehensive understanding of the situation right now because Thor sending Durkon to talk to Redcloak is, in fact, the most direct way that he has to communicate with him, and even that would normally be off the table because they can't tell mortals about the Snarl and the gates.

----------


## Kish

> This is my first post in GitP, so bear with me...
> 
> One thing I see being misapplied in this discussion is the idea that Redcloak even _has_ a choice to not proceed forward with The Plan. He is the most powerful Cleric of the Dark One. All his authority and power comes from the god calling his shots... and it's the Dark One that wants The Plan to go forward.





> Two problems here:
> 
> 1) Clerics have more agency than you're giving them credit for.


Yes, this. Of course he has a choice. He's a cleric, not a puppet. That's _if_ you assume both that he's 100% correct that the Dark One wants him to continue working with Xykon, and that his lack of any effort to get rid of Xykon is 100% about "the Dark One wouldn't want me to." And I think any path that leads you to "Redcloak is not largely motivated by not having to admit he was wrong about anything" hinges on ignoring a great deal of the comic.

----------


## Manga Shoggoth

> And I think any path that leads you to "Redcloak is not largely motivated by not having to admit he was wrong about anything" hinges on ignoring a great deal of the comic.


Oh, this is absolutely part of Redcloak's characterisation. But that doesn't mean he's deep in the sunk cost fallacy.

Oh, and while I don't think he's suffering from the sunk cost fallacy at the moment (for reasons already stated), that doesn't mean that it isn't an option in the future. He has good reasons for not trusting Durkon now, but I can quite see him going in that direction if it becomes clear to him that the four colour option is a real thing.

----------


## brian 333

> Oh, this is absolutely part of Redcloak's characterisation. But that doesn't mean he's deep in the sunk cost fallacy.
> 
> Oh, and while I don't think he's suffering from the sunk cost fallacy at the moment (for reasons already stated), that doesn't mean that it isn't an option in the future. He has good reasons for not trusting Durkon now, but I can quite see him going in that direction if it becomes clear to him that the four colour option is a real thing.


This is true at the moment. It overlooks the many opportunities Redcloak has had to realize The Plan's flaws, and the fact that the gods TDO wants to intimidate have already survived the thing TDO wants to use as a threat.

In other words, with only the information Redcloak had available before the meeting with Durkon, he should have been aware that The Plan won't work.

He refuses to look at that because then he would have to look his reflection in the eye and admit that everything he has done was not worth it.

----------


## Ruck

I'm a little mixed, because on the one hand, I think Redcloak is a bit motivated by the sunk cost fallacy, in the sense of "If I change course now, all of this, all of the goblins I killed (especially the most important one) will have been for nothing." In the sense, as Kish says, of not being able to face that he was wrong about any course of action he's taken in service of The Plan.

On the other hand, I don't think changing course for him is as easy as it might seem to us. Xykon wouldn't just let him walk away, and I don't think Redcloak is strong enough yet to take him on. Xykon will have to be destroyed before Redcloak considers an alternative, I think.

Even if he did free himself from Xykon somehow and wanted to find a new caster for the plan, I'm not sure where he would. The goblins are better off with Gobbotopia than they were in _Start of Darkness_, but that doesn't mean they've advanced any arcane caster sufficiently to be the other half of the plan. Another poster suggested recruiting someone like Miron; the obvious problem there is "Why would Miron agree to do this?" Most high-level arcane casters have their own thing going; it would take someone powerful enough, without direction, and with sufficient motivation. (Xykon fit those qualifications, and the latter one only because Redcloak lied to him that the Ritual would let him rule the world.)

And while he's easy for us to see that he's being stubborn in not listening to Durkon, he really doesn't have any reason to trust him, and the chance to eliminate the high-level cleric of the party that is openly trying to stop him must have seemed like a valuable opportunity from his perspective.

In other words, while Redcloak has his ego and his psychological hangups that are going to and have gotten in in the way of his decisions, it is also hard to see how an alternative plan might seen reasonable to him right now in terms of either its chances of success or its chances of achieving his ultimate goal. (Which I prefer; he'd be a lot less interesting if he was wildly irrational, or if he was fully correct and going about it the right way. Great character.)

----------


## RobertaME

> While I largely agree with your process and conclusions, it's well-demonstrated onscreen that the gods are shaped by their worshiper's beliefs and I imagine that as a very recent god, the Dark One would be more malleable than most.
> 
> While this is not something I'd expect the story to explore, as a hero to Gobbotopia and the high priest, Redcloak could arguably change his god more forcefully and directly than his god could do the reverse, at least if the Dark One was held to the inter-pantheonic rules previously established.


A counterexample to the idea that worshipers shape their pantheon's basic nature is the widespread belief among dwarves, Thor's nearly sole worshipers, that trees are evil while Thor himself maintains that they're just trees. You would think after so long that such a belief were in place among such a huge portion of his worshipers that Thor would at least be _beginning_ to internalize the opinion. Instead he rolls his eyes and tries to explain that it's just a misunderstanding (comic 1137) to Durkon and Minrah... before giving up and telling them that Valhalla's trees are turncoats fighting for good.

Even if one were to assume that the Dark One would be more malleable by virtue of being such a new deity, it still precludes Redcloak from taking a position opposite that of his god. He just won't believe anyone other than the Dark One when it comes to abandoning The Plan. Even if he doubts that The Plan is the best way forward, which I think has been brewing ever since his big speech establishing Gobbotopia, he'll lie to himself (comic 701) over (comic 831) and over (comic 1038) again to follow the Dark One's plan.

Again, I'm more than willing to admit I'm wrong, but the reasoning as presented in the comic just doesn't seem to support any other theory than the idea that Redcloak will stick to The Plan even if it destroys the entire world, so long as the Dark One wants him to stick to it.




> Well reasoned post, but you are affirming that Redcloak's acts have nothing to do with what's best for goblinkind, which is his stated goal.


This is very true... but then he's Lawful EVIL. He's more than willing and able to lie to anyone and everyone... including himself... about what his real goals are.

In the end, we are all true to our own nature. RC is a goblin supremacist; what he wants more than anything is to see goblinoids with their boots on the necks of every other race in the world. He doesn't care what it takes to get that, even at the cost of his own life and that of every goblin in the world. Of course, if he can manage a way to get what he wants in _this_ world, he'll take it... which is why he sort of has his feet in two camps as Oona pointed out... (comic 1262) but if push comes to shove he'd happily tear down the world on the remote chance it'll give goblins a leg up in the next world... because that's what the Dark One wants him to do.

We don't even _know_ that what Thor told Durkon was true that the Dark One wouldn't survive to the next world. That could just be Thor framing the narrative in such a way so as to get the result he desires... the aid of the Dark One in sealing the rifts forever. Even more simply though, Thor himself admits (comic 1144) that he's unsure if the Dark One will survive to the next cycle or not... so it's entirely possible that the Dark One _would_ survive. Redcloak, even if he believed Durkon, (which he has no reason to) can't accept the idea that his god can die, so RC proceeds under the assumption that the Dark One is immortal. This brings us back to RC being willing to burn it all down to give the Dark One a better shot in the next world.

His thinking is totally consistent with the information he has and fits who he is as a person. He _does_ want what's best for all goblinoids... but being who he is, RC is willing to kill them all to get it. After all, being a Cleric of the Dark One he knows that they'll all just end up in goblin heaven anyway... so nothing is actually lost. (seriously, D&D's 'revolving door afterlife' makes death not such a big deal... and a Lawful Evil Cleric would see it as simply an inconvenience, not a tragedy... so long as it advances the position of the Dark One)




> Two problems here:
> 
> 1) Clerics have more agency than you're giving them credit for. In fact, clerics have to go out of their way to commune with their gods at all, and Redcloak has directly stated that he's never spoken to The Dark One. _The Plan_ is _The Plan_ to Redcloak, but for all we know The Dark One might just see it as _a plan_, and if a better opportunity comes up, he might go for it (I personally think it's much more likely that The Dark One wants power above all else, and isn't some benevolent protector of goblinkind, but Redcloak is working under the opposite assumption). 
> 
> 2) The reason that Thor is going through Redcloak isn't because he can't convince The Dark One, it's because he can't even talk to The Dark One. They have no means of directly communicating because the gods have set up a complex and indirect system of conflict resolution to avoid creating another snarl, and The Dark One doesn't have a place in it. That's the reason they're bothering with the Godsmoot after all, instead of just getting together themselves in the astral realm. The Dark One doesn't even have a comprehensive understanding of the situation right now because Thor sending Durkon to talk to Redcloak is, in fact, the most direct way that he has to communicate with him, and even that would normally be off the table because they can't tell mortals about the Snarl and the gates.


Except RC _does_ have in-comic proof that the Dark One cares for the goblins who have fallen. (comic 704) Jirix delivered the message "Don't screw this up" to RC after he was raised. Now, that's a pretty cryptic message, but if the Dark One didn't want The Plan to proceed forward as it stands, I'm pretty sure his message would have been more along the lines of "Stop being a blind idiot!", "Dump the bone-guy!" or some-such.

As far as RC can tell, the Dark One, whom RC worships _as a god_, wants The Plan to proceed... so RC really doesn't _have_ a choice, any more than Durkon had a choice when Thor asked him to try and convince RC to turn away from The Plan. For either one to turn away from their gods' directives is to deny who they are as characters.

I guess well all see eventually. :)

----------


## Manga Shoggoth

> 2) The reason that Thor is going through Redcloak isn't because he can't convince The Dark One, it's because he can't even talk to The Dark One. They have no means of directly communicating because the gods have set up a complex and indirect system of conflict resolution to avoid creating another snarl, and The Dark One doesn't have a place in it. That's the reason they're bothering with the Godsmoot after all, instead of just getting together themselves in the astral realm.


Oh, the gods have direct ways of communicating, it's just that TDO has locked all the path(s?) that Thor can use. Loki was trying to stay in touch with TDO until TDO discovered the snarl on his own.

You are right in that since TDO isn't formally in the system there isn't any other way to him now, but there are other methods of communication open to the gods in general.

----------


## InvisibleBison

> A counterexample to the idea that worshipers shape their pantheon's basic nature is the widespread belief among dwarves, Thor's nearly sole worshipers, that trees are evil while Thor himself maintains that they're just trees. You would think after so long that such a belief were in place among such a huge portion of his worshipers that Thor would at least be _beginning_ to internalize the opinion. Instead he rolls his eyes and tries to explain that it's just a misunderstanding (comic 1137) to Durkon and Minrah... before giving up and telling them that Valhalla's trees are turncoats fighting for good.


Dwarves aren't Thor's nearly sole worshipers. True, per word of Giant Thor is much more popular among dwarves than among humans, but that doesn't mean nearly everyone who worships Thor is a dwarf. We don't know how many humans there are, after all. If the human population is sufficiently larger than the dwarf population there could well be more human worshipers of Thor than dwarven ones, and that's before you bring in the gnomes and the halflings and the monstrous humanoids and etc, etc.

----------


## Kish

> As far as RC can tell, the Dark One, whom RC worships _as a god_, wants The Plan to proceed... so RC really doesn't _have_ a choice, any more than Durkon had a choice when Thor asked him to try and convince RC to turn away from The Plan. For either one to turn away from their gods' directives is to deny who they are as characters.


Watching the goalposts slide (in this case from from "he's a cleric, he has no choice" to "he's a cleric, making that choice would Deny Who He is As A Character") is not one of my favorite activities, I must say.

However, let's go with your Redcloak and Durkon analogy.

Which one, the first chance he got, cast Commune to check if what the other one had told him was true, actively argued the other one's case with his god, and considers it a serious issue that his god couldn't give him a wholehearted "of course my actions are nothing like what he described"?

Which one instead tried to murder the other one and pressured an ally to tell him that nothing the other one had said needed to be listened to?

If you're not seeing a difference there, I think you're missing important parts of the comic.

It is entirely possible that Redcloak's story will lead to: Yes, this is what the Dark One wants, and you need to turn away from it anyway, whatever the cost to you. That would neither be simply impossible as you originally claimed (cleric, no free will here, they should be talking to the actual brain and instead they're trying to make a case to an appendage), nor deny who he is as a character--it would be being him able to grow and change, _being_ a character, rather than an appendage of the Dark One. And, morally, it is not at all too much to ask of him.

----------


## BloodSquirrel

> Except RC _does_ have in-comic proof that the Dark One cares for the goblins who have fallen. (comic 704) Jirix delivered the message "Don't screw this up" to RC after he was raised. Now, that's a pretty cryptic message, but if the Dark One didn't want The Plan to proceed forward as it stands, I'm pretty sure his message would have been more along the lines of "Stop being a blind idiot!", "Dump the bone-guy!" or some-such.


That's very presumptive. All we see in that comic is that The Dark One has an army of goblinoids in the afterlife. That doesn't prove that The Dark One actually cares for them- we know that the Gods get power from worshipers after all, even ones in the afterlife, so it's exactly what we would expect him to do anyway if he was acting purely in self interest.

Meanwhile, "Don't screw this up" is very ambiguous. He could have just as easily said "The Plan is still priority number one" or "Screw Gobbotopia and get to the next gate". _Why_ The Dark One wasn't more explicit isn't clear, but trying to use it to confirm your priors either way is fallacious.

But that's irrelevant anyway, since at that point The Dark One didn't know what Redcloak knows now. Back then, as far as we knew, _The Plan_ was still his best shot at gaining power and influence, _especially_ if he was willing to casually sacrifice goblin lives for those ends. Since then, we've learned that the gods are willing to blow up the world before they let The Dark One get his hands on the snarl, that The Dark One might not survive until the next world is created, and that this has been part of an ongoing cycle for untold millennia. The Dark One didn't know any of that when he spoke to Jirix. 




> As far as RC can tell, the Dark One, whom RC worships _as a god_, wants The Plan to proceed... so RC really doesn't _have_ a choice, any more than Durkon had a choice when Thor asked him to try and convince RC to turn away from The Plan. For either one to turn away from their gods' directives is to deny who they are as characters.


No, to attribute every aspect of their decision making to their gods is to deny who they are as characters. It's the same kind of logic that a Miko would use- "I didn't fall, so clearly the Gods wanted me to do that". If a cleric goes too far, they may lose their powers, but until then there's a lot of leeway.

Durkon didn't try to negotiate with Redcloak just because Thor told him to, he did it because he believes it's the right course of action. There's a reason that Thor bothered to show Durkon the graveyard instead of just giving him a blunt order- he needed Durkon to genuinely believe in his plan. And afterward, Durkon communed with Thor to ask him about what Redcloak said because Durkon is ultimately driven more by his own sense of justice than anything else, and he had genuine misgivings about the version of events that Redcloak presented. 

And- again- Redcloak always has the option to just walk away from the Dark One entirely. Yes, he'll lose his powers, but it's better than getting the whole world blown up. 

Meanwhile, from a purely practical perspective, the gods *have* to compromise with mortals. They are extremely limited in what they can do directly. They need mortal clerics to carry out their will on the mortal world, and high-level clerics are rare. That gives said clerics a lot of bargaining power, so to speak. Especially Redcloak- he's by far the most powerful cleric The Dark One has, seemingly for a long time, and unless you accept the premise that The Dark One really doesn't care about goblins and just wants power (Which is the premise Redcloak is operating under), then Redcloak has a hell of a lot of power to say "No, this plan is insane, it's going to get the other Gods to blow up the world, and I'm giving up on it. You can either let me keep being the leader who is improving the lot of goblins the hard way, or you can take away my powers and watch Gobbotopia fall without me to protect it".

----------


## BloodSquirrel

> Oh, the gods have direct ways of communicating, it's just that TDO has locked all the path(s?) that Thor can use. Loki was trying to stay in touch with TDO until TDO discovered the snarl on his own.
> 
> You are right in that since TDO isn't formally in the system there isn't any other way to him now, but there are other methods of communication open to the gods in general.


That's not quite accurate- Thor, in the previous strip, says that the reason that he can't just swing by in person is that "The slightest disagreement could create a new two-color snarl". Which goes into what I said earlier about why they were using the Godsmoot instead of meeting in person.

Yes, the direct method exists, but they're too dangerous to use, which is why even before The Dark One lock the pathways Thor was sending emissaries instead of going himself. So Thor seems to think that he could still physically get to The Dark One, but trying to force his way would create a snarl.

----------


## Manga Shoggoth

Um... Loki was the one sending emissaries, not Thor. Loki was also using the method of communication that is supposedly too dangerous for the gods to use.

Thor doesn't want to talk directly because he is afraid that him specifically getting into a disagreement with TDO could cause a 2-colour snarl, and can't talk directly because the other means of communication (via Loki) has been cut off.

----------


## Reach Weapon

> A counterexample to the idea that worshipers shape their pantheon's basic nature is [...] (comic 1137)


I'd argue that's at least as much a belief about trees, as one about Thor, if not more so, and its effect on Thor was addressed in the final panel of the previous strip (comic 1136). Further, I might limit how much weight I place there, as it seems to be more in service of humor than plot (although one could argue the same about his hair color (comic 1144)). Conversely, the impact of worshiper's belief on Odin is a plot point (comic 1145).

Others have addressed the issue of Redcloak's agency, but I do think it's worth stating explicitly that while Redcloak can choose, he may not be able to do so as a cleric with spells, class features and ability to gain more levels as a cleric of the Dark One or as Bearer of the Crimson Mantle.

----------


## RobertaME

> Watching the goalposts slide (in this case from from "he's a cleric, he has no choice" to "he's a cleric, making that choice would Deny Who He is As A Character") is not one of my favorite activities, I must say.


My 'goalposts' haven't changed at all. Motives have been ascribed to my initial post that I did not state. I never said Redcloak was _incapable_ of choosing to defy the will of the Dark One, only that doing so would be against his nature and therefore not a reasonable assumption. RC is the most powerful Cleric the Dark One has (presumably) ever had. That implies a great deal of faith in his god. Ergo, it would seem (to me) that his acting against the wishes of his god would be a pretty major deviation from the character as written... which is the same thing I said in my 2nd post.

No moving goalposts... just a clarification of my original meaning when it became obvious that people weren't understanding my point.




> However, let's go with your Redcloak and Durkon analogy.
> 
> Which one, the first chance he got, cast Commune to check if what the other one had told him was true, actively argued the other one's case with his god, and considers it a serious issue that his god couldn't give him a wholehearted "of course my actions are nothing like what he described"?
> 
> Which one instead tried to murder the other one and pressured an ally to tell him that nothing the other one had said needed to be listened to?
> 
> If you're not seeing a difference there, I think you're missing important parts of the comic.


What is described here is the difference between Good and Evil in the D&D alignment system. They're both Lawful though, and share the same motivations along that axis. If the Dark One told RC to sacrifice his life for The Plan, I'm pretty sure he'd do it. (as he very nearly did when Soon nearly killed both he and Xykon... comic 462)




> It is entirely possible that Redcloak's story will lead to: Yes, this is what the Dark One wants, and you need to turn away from it anyway, whatever the cost to you. That would neither be simply impossible as you originally claimed (cleric, no free will here, they should be talking to the actual brain and instead they're trying to make a case to an appendage), nor deny who he is as a character--it would be being him able to grow and change, _being_ a character, rather than an appendage of the Dark One. And, morally, it is not at all too much to ask of him.


Again, motivations are being ascribed to my original post that aren't in fact. I never said RC lacks agency or free will... I was simply pointing out that his character as described to this point is "all in" on The Plan because it's what the Dark One wants, regardless of other motivations. Logically it would at this point be smarter to abandon The Plan... yet he still doesn't. What many seem to ascribe to "stubborn sunk-cost thinking" I ascribe a more simple and pure motivation... devotion. He may be _capable_ of changing his mind and dropping The Plan, but he _can't_ because it would mean defying his god's will... which he is (apparently) completely unwilling to even consider.

That's the key point. He can't go against The Plan because it would be a violation of everything he believes in... everything he's _ever_ believed in... even if it's the best course of action...

...at least as far as I can see. Time will tell. (to be honest, if it comes down the way everyone is saying it would be extremely disappointing, if for no other reason than the fact that it's entirely too predictable)




> That's very presumptive. All we see in that comic is that The Dark One has an army of goblinoids in the afterlife. That doesn't prove that The Dark One actually cares for them- we know that the Gods get power from worshipers after all, even ones in the afterlife, so it's exactly what we would expect him to do anyway if he was acting purely in self interest.


Assuming in either direction, that the Dark One cares for the goblins or that he's just using them, are both equally presumptive since there's no hard data either way. I am simply making the assumption of what Redcloak likely believes, regardless of external proofs. (or lack thereof) One doesn't become the most powerful Cleric of a god with weak or questionable beliefs.




> Meanwhile, "Don't screw this up" is very ambiguous. He could have just as easily said "The Plan is still priority number one" or "Screw Gobbotopia and get to the next gate". _Why_ The Dark One wasn't more explicit isn't clear, but trying to use it to confirm your priors either way is fallacious.


...as I myself pointed out. ("Now, that's a pretty cryptic message" was my quote, to be specific) Not much can be concluded from the message itself, but quite a lot can be surmised by what he chose _not_ to say... which was my point.




> But that's irrelevant anyway, since at that point The Dark One didn't know what Redcloak knows now. Back then, as far as we knew, _The Plan_ was still his best shot at gaining power and influence, _especially_ if he was willing to casually sacrifice goblin lives for those ends. Since then, we've learned that the gods are willing to blow up the world before they let The Dark One get his hands on the snarl, that The Dark One might not survive until the next world is created, and that this has been part of an ongoing cycle for untold millennia. The Dark One didn't know any of that when he spoke to Jirix.


The thing is, Redcloak doesn't "know" anything. He has no reason to believe Durkon and every reason to think he's just trying to make Redclaok turn against The Plan that the Dark One wants him to fulfill because Team Evil is about to win. (or so he believes) It's similar to how RC couldn't conceive of the fact that the Sapphire Guild spent decades ignoring the other four gates on the basis of a single promise. (comic 546) He simply can't help but look at things from his own perspective. (which is a failing almost everyone has... looking at things only from our own perspective) Because he wouldn't honor a promise when the stakes are so high, he assumes no one else would either. When Durkon engages in a parley to try and end the conflict, RC only sees it from his own point of view... that the only reason he would ever do such a thing is if he felt he was about to lose... thus ascribing to Durkon the same motivations.




> No, to attribute every aspect of their decision making to their gods is to deny who they are as characters. It's the same kind of logic that a Miko would use- "I didn't fall, so clearly the Gods wanted me to do that". If a cleric goes too far, they may lose their powers, but until then there's a lot of leeway.


Yes, RC and Durkon have a lot of leeway to go against their respective gods' beliefs before they're stricken down, but the very notion that they would _want_ to go against their will is anathema to them both. Besides that, Durkon has shown that he can fall to the same sort of false understanding as Miko. (assuming Thor wanted him to surrender to Miko because it was raining; comic 201) I'm also not attributing _every_ decision they make to their gods' wills... just _one_ decision by _one_ Cleric... Redcloak and his position on The Plan.




> Durkon didn't try to negotiate with Redcloak just because Thor told him to, he did it because he believes it's the right course of action. There's a reason that Thor bothered to show Durkon the graveyard instead of just giving him a blunt order- he needed Durkon to genuinely believe in his plan. And afterward, Durkon communed with Thor to ask him about what Redcloak said because Durkon is ultimately driven more by his own sense of justice than anything else, and he had genuine misgivings about the version of events that Redcloak presented. 
> 
> And- again- Redcloak always has the option to just walk away from the Dark One entirely. Yes, he'll lose his powers, but it's better than getting the whole world blown up.


Not from RC's perspective it isn't. He'd rather see the whole world destroyed than go against The Plan, even if it means his own death. (which, let's be honest, he knows doesn't mean a whole lot since he's all but guaranteed a seat at the right hand of the Dark One, even if the other gods do tear it all down... so death means very little to him)




> Meanwhile, from a purely practical perspective, the gods *have* to compromise with mortals. They are extremely limited in what they can do directly. They need mortal clerics to carry out their will on the mortal world, and high-level clerics are rare. That gives said clerics a lot of bargaining power, so to speak. Especially Redcloak- he's by far the most powerful cleric The Dark One has, seemingly for a long time, and unless you accept the premise that The Dark One really doesn't care about goblins and just wants power (Which is the premise Redcloak is operating under), then Redcloak has a hell of a lot of power to say "No, this plan is insane, it's going to get the other Gods to blow up the world, and I'm giving up on it. You can either let me keep being the leader who is improving the lot of goblins the hard way, or you can take away my powers and watch Gobbotopia fall without me to protect it".


I do not see the notion that RC is operating under the premise that the Dark One doesn't care about the goblins. Where are you getting this from? (serious question here... not snarking or anything... if you're seeing that perspective somewhere, I'd like to know where as it would be a game-changer on my whole argument) Short of that, RC may have the power to demand concessions from the Dark One, but his character, as far as I can tell, is that of a devoted believer.

Bottom Line: I think a lot of people are totally discounting Redcloak's degree of devotion to the Dark One as unimportant, whereas I see it as a prime motivation of his.
As I have said, I guess time will tell the truth of the matter. YMMV.

Side note: I can just see Rich Burlew reading all this and laughing his rear off at how I'm ascribing WAY more motivation into all this than he ever did... but I can't help it. That's who this geek-girl is!

----------


## Peelee

> RC is the most powerful Cleric the Dark One has (presumably) ever had. That implies a great deal of faith in his god.


Point of order, that implies a great deal of XP.

----------


## Dame_Mechanus

> Point of order, that implies a great deal of XP.


It implies a great deal of XP earned specifically in service to that god, and we have also had it demonstrated (to my eyes) that Redcloak earned that XP as a direct function of getting strong enough to enact said deity's will. Redcloak's _stated_ goal has been service to the Dark One, and everything else is a step along the path to providing that service, including the acquisition of levels and power. (I specify "stated" because while it can be argued - convincingly - that Redcloak has made a number of choices directly antithetical to his actual goals, it's very clear that the intentions remain unchanged. Whether or not he is going about this in the right way is secondary to whether or not he is genuinely trying to accomplish it.)

Redcloak has has numerous opportunities to sit back and enjoy power instead of pursuing the Dark One's goals, and if all he wanted was to be a high-level cleric, RAW makes it clear he could be a cleric of an ideal or cause. Obviously that didn't happen for narrative reason, but I think it's a valid point to state that being the Dark One's most powerful cleric in this situation _does_ serve as an argument in favor of his devotion, even if that is not a universally true statement.

----------


## RobertaME

> It implies a great deal of XP earned specifically in service to that god, and we have also had it demonstrated (to my eyes) that Redcloak earned that XP as a direct function of getting strong enough to enact said deity's will. Redcloak's _stated_ goal has been service to the Dark One, and everything else is a step along the path to providing that service, including the acquisition of levels and power. (I specify "stated" because while it can be argued - convincingly - that Redcloak has made a number of choices directly antithetical to his actual goals, it's very clear that the intentions remain unchanged. Whether or not he is going about this in the right way is secondary to whether or not he is genuinely trying to accomplish it.)
> 
> Redcloak has has numerous opportunities to sit back and enjoy power instead of pursuing the Dark One's goals, and if all he wanted was to be a high-level cleric, RAW makes it clear he could be a cleric of an ideal or cause. Obviously that didn't happen for narrative reason, but I think it's a valid point to state that being the Dark One's most powerful cleric in this situation _does_ serve as an argument in favor of his devotion, even if that is not a universally true statement.


...

Hmmm... ninjad. First time for everything!

Basically, I was going to say what Dame_Mechanus said. If Redcloak was only interested in power and not the devotion of the Dark One, he could just as easily have venerated the ideal of Goblin Supremacy and be just as powerful, (i.e. have just as much XP) if not more so. Such an ideal might bring in Fenris, creator of the Goblins, into his area of devotion and add Fenris's Domains to that of the Dark One... and since Redcloak seems to be able to cast Substitute Domain from Complete Champion, it would open up more options toward his power with much fewer strings attached.

Again, we may not know _why_ he chooses to worship only the Dark One instead of the ideal of Goblin Supremacy, but the fact that he _does_ when worshiping an ideal could be more personally beneficial is telling.

The only point I was trying to make in all of this is that Redcloak's motives may be more complex than simple power, stubborn pride, or 'sunk cost thinking'. I just wanted to postulate the idea that perhaps, just _perhaps_, he actually _is_ so devoted to the Dark One that he'd rather destroy the whole world, himself included, just to give his god a leg up. (he actually _told_ Durkon as much; comic 1212, panels 7 & 9) Add to that the fact that as a Cleric of the Dark One he _knows_ that all the devoted goblins who would die in that end would pass on to their afterlife and not be destroyed at all and he has little reason to deviate from The Plan... so long as it's _attainable_.

I guess the future will tell us who was right and who was wrong. If it's me that's wrong, I'll own it... but I would still stand by the idea that at _this_ point in time my theory is just as plausible as any other motivations Redcloak may have.

:)

----------


## Peelee

> It implies a great deal of XP earned specifically in service to that god, and we have also had it demonstrated (to my eyes) that Redcloak earned that XP as a direct function of getting strong enough to enact said deity's will.





> ...
> 
> Hmmm... ninjad. First time for everything!
> 
> Basically, I was going to say what Dame_Mechanus said. If Redcloak was only interested in power and not the devotion of the Dark One, he could just as easily have venerated the ideal of Goblin Supremacy and be just as powerful, (i.e. have just as much XP) if not more so.


Irrelevant to the point that he can't stop because he worships The Dark One. He could choose to stop, and either dedicate himself to another deity (incredibly unlikely) or a cause (more likely than a deity, and not out of line with what he's already been doing). It would be hard, but it is a viable alternate route he could choose to take at any time. His devotion to The Dark One is just as much a continuing, active choice as his devotion to The Plan.

He is a high level cleric because of his XP. Not because of his devotion to his deity. The latter cna be changed without affecting the former.

----------


## RobertaME

> Irrelevant to the point that he can't stop because he worships The Dark One.


I guess that's the key point. It's not that he _can't_ in the sense that he's physically incapable of it, but that he _won't_ that is the difference at the core of the issue here. When I say that Redcloak "can't" abandon The Plan I am meaning it the same sense that a good character simply "can't" make themselves murder someone in cold blood... not that he's totally _incapable_ of it, but that it's _anathema_ to him.

"Can't" has several meanings when it comes to personal actions. There are things that I simply "can't" do because I just couldn't make myself to it because it would violate my conscience. That is what I'm getting at.

Does that clarify my meaning better?




> He could choose to stop, and either dedicate himself to another deity (incredibly unlikely) or a cause (more likely than a deity, and not out of line with what he's already been doing). It would be hard, but it is a viable alternate route he could choose to take at any time. His devotion to The Dark One is just as much a continuing, active choice as his devotion to The Plan.


But really... _could_ he? Sure, he is his own man... er... goblin... and has his own agency and can choose to do anything he wants... but can he _make_ himself disobey the Dark One? That's the crux of the argument. 

Could Durkon choose, for instance, to sacrifice Kudzu to the Snarl, completely unmaking him, if it meant saving the world from the Snarl? Could he _really_ choose to do that and not betray everything he believes in?

Likewise, can Redcloak _really_ choose to defy the will of his god and abandon The Plan? Can he make himself abandon everything he's believed in for so long and sacrificed so much to accomplish? Is he actually _capable_ of it? Sure... but could he _make_ himself do it? That's the million dollar question... and not answerable either way given what we know at this point. That leaves us where we are... positing theories. Mine is no less likely than anyone else's.




> He is a high level cleric because of his XP. Not because of his devotion to his deity. The latter cna be changed without affecting the former.


But how did he _get_ that XP? Through his devotion to his duty to his god, the Dark One. Surviving to at least 17th level is a feat in and of itself. It could be argued that he only survived this long because he simply refuses to give up... he just keeps pushing on and on, through any and every obstacle. What could motivate him to have such dedication to this task... one that has nearly killed him many times? Who has that kind of... well... _devotion_... to keep going so he can get that powerful?

Remembering that Stickworld is a slave to narrative, if Redcloak were just lucky, eventually the narrative would shift and he'd end up some adventurer's latest boss fight and giant XP reward.

So, he's either the single luckiest Goblin Cleric in the history of ever... or he has a special motivation that allows the narrative to ensure his continued survival. His faith in the Dark One and The Plan _is_ that motivation. It's the reason he's still alive to _be_ that powerful.

At least... that's what _I_ see. :)

----------


## Peelee

Snipping a bit for brevity, because as you agree, this is the heart of the matter:


> But really... _could_ he? Sure, he is his own man... er... goblin... and has his own agency and can choose to do anything he wants... but can he _make_ himself disobey the Dark One? That's the crux of the argument.


Yes. And in Start of Darkness, *Spoiler*
Show

we see the one person who knew him best make this same argument to him, to choose to abandon what he had shackled himself to this whole time. And we see Redcloak begrudgingly make the choice.

This is reinforced when he looks in the mirror in his Gobbotopia office and says "It'll all be worth it. You'll see." Redcloak not only can make that choice, he does make that choice every day. Most of the time so reflexively and instinctively that he doesn't even think about it, but when confronted with the choice to go another way, as presented in Start of Darkness and again when confronted by the dwarves.

Redcloak chooses to stick with it because he's too invested in it and can't bear to imagine that he could still succeed by abandoning it and trying a new route, even when they are presented to him. Because it'll all be worth it. You'll see.

----------


## brian 333

His devotion to TDO isn't in question, nor is it _the_ question. He could examine his course of action so far, deduce the inevitability of its failure, and bring this to TDO's attention without being disloyal.

The fact that he does not even consider an alternative has nothing to do with blind devotion to TDO and everything to do with, "I was right all along. You'll see."

----------


## Peelee

> His devotion to TDO isn't in question


It was literally in the post I was replying to.

----------


## brian 333

> It was literally in the post I was replying to.


Was replying to the same post. My point is, unswerving devotion to TDO does not exclude analyzing the current strategy and proposing improvements. This is attempt #5 using the same strategy as four previous attempts.

They all failed. He has not bothered to ask "Why?" Is the reason he has not asked due to blind devotion to his god? He says so nowhere in the comic. But he admits the truth to his brother"s image in his mirror.

----------


## RobertaME

> Snipping a bit for brevity, because as you agree, this is the heart of the matter:
> Yes. And in Start of Darkness, {snip}


As I do not have any of the books, I have only been able to glean snippets of what happens in Start of Darkness, but I did get this general concept from other posts on the forum.




> This is reinforced when he looks in the mirror in his Gobbotopia office and says "It'll all be worth it. You'll see." Redcloak not only can make that choice, he does make that choice every day. Most of the time so reflexively and instinctively that he doesn't even think about it, but when confronted with the choice to go another way, as presented in Start of Darkness and again when confronted by the dwarves.
> 
> Redcloak chooses to stick with it because he's too invested in it and can't bear to imagine that he could still succeed by abandoning it and trying a new route, even when they are presented to him. Because it'll all be worth it. You'll see.


*Spoiler: Start of Darkness*
Show

Is there a reason for ascribing his motives to solely be due to stubborn insistence that "It'll all be worth it" instead of those words being driven by his blind faith in the Dark One and The Plan? That quote could just as easily be seen as Redcloak not telling _himself_ that it'll be worth it, but posthumously telling _Right-Eye_ (I think that was his brother's name, correct?) that RC's faith in the Dark One and The Plan will be justified. After all, when he looks in the mirror there, he sees "right eye". (as shown in the comic you linked to)

Just another perspective.





> His devotion to TDO isn't in question, nor is it _the_ question. He could examine his course of action so far, deduce the inevitability of its failure, and bring this to TDO's attention without being disloyal.


Who's to say that Redcloak would think that The Plan will inevitably fail? As far as he can tell, The Plan is all but fulfilled when Durkon confronts him. (comic 1211, panel 2) He sees Dukon's attempt to dissuade him from The Plan as proof that the "good guys" can't stop them, so they're resorting to trying to talk him into giving up by concocting a fairy tale where every objection has "the perfect refutation" because they're desperate to not lose. After all, it's what _he_ would do if he was about to lose...

We are most blind to that which does not match our own point of view. :)




> The fact that he does not even consider an alternative has nothing to do with blind devotion to TDO and everything to do with, "I was right all along. You'll see."


Based on what, exactly? I mean, where is the source of the idea that Redcloak's primary motivation is to prove he was "Right all along"? Oona's insights? That's pretty thin. Lot's of people think they know what other people believe and are wrong. It happens every day.

Am I saying that RC's desire to prove himself right _can't_ be a motivation? Not at all... just that maybe it's not his _main_ motivation. People, even goblins, are complex. We can hold multiple motivations at the same time, some that are even contradictory... others that are complimentary. Usually though, we're driven by our most passionate motivations. I simply think it's just as likely that Redcloak's main motivation for continuing the pursue The Plan is his devotion to the Dark One as it may be that his mainly motivated by a need to prove himself right.

Maybe I'm wrong... maybe I'm right... maybe we're _all_ wrong and Rich Burlew will shock us all with some goofy twist that makes it all moot...

...time will tell. :)

----------


## BloodSquirrel

> Assuming in either direction, that the Dark One cares for the goblins or that he's just using them, are both equally presumptive since there's no hard data either way. I am simply making the assumption of what Redcloak likely believes, regardless of external proofs. (or lack thereof) One doesn't become the most powerful Cleric of a god with weak or questionable beliefs.


You straight-up called it "In-comic proof". 




> ...as I myself pointed out. ("Now, that's a pretty cryptic message" was my quote, to be specific) Not much can be concluded from the message itself, but quite a lot can be surmised by what he chose _not_ to say... which was my point.


Again, you were very unambiguously claiming that you could draw a hard conclusion from it. And, no, we can't surmise anything by what he chose _not_ to say because we know almost nothing about him and could attribute it to an endless number of possible motives.




> The thing is, Redcloak doesn't "know" anything. He has no reason to believe Durkon and every reason to think he's just trying to make Redclaok turn against The Plan that the Dark One wants him to fulfill because Team Evil is about to win.


You seem to be quite fond of using this kind of logic- "We don't know for sure that you're right, so that means that we can just assume that I'm right."

In point of fact, he has plenty of good reasons to believe Durkon. None of Durkon's claims contradict any facts that Redcloak knows. They're internally consistent. Durkon has demonstrated good faith by trying to negotiate with him. Durkon is from a stringently lawful society. 

By contrast, none of his reasons for disbelieving Durkon are particularly good. Team Evil has already lost four gate right out from under them- assuming that they're about to win is highly wishful thinking. Assuming that the gods have no options other than negotiating is wishful thinking.

In fact, given that the entire supposed point of this plan is to force the gods to negotiate with the Dark One, his assumption that they wouldn't negotiate is self-contradictory and self-defeating. On the one hand, he doesn't want to believe that the gods would blow up the world, but on the other hand, he doesn't want to believe that the gods would negotiate before things got to that point. 

Contrast Redcloak's behavior with Durkon's: Durkon had much better reason to think that Redcloak was lying about the gods creating goblins as xp fodder (Trying murder someone in the middle of negotiations puts one firmly in the "untrustworthy" category) and he still communed with Thor as soon as he could to ask if it was true.




> Yes, RC and Durkon have a lot of leeway to go against their respective gods' beliefs before they're stricken down, but the very notion that they would _want_ to go against their will is anathema to them both.


This is only true to the degree that both of them conflate their gods' will with their pre-existing biases. Redcloak knows almost nothing about the Dark One's beliefs. He has never talked to him. He only has the vision from the Crimson Mantle to go on. To Redcloak, _The Dark One_, _The Plan_, _What's Best for Goblins_, and _Right all Along_ are the same thing _by definition_. That is the bedrock of his belief system. He's not living in two villages- he's living in four.

But what would happen if The Dark Ones did commune with Redcloak and said "Okay, so I looked into it, turns out the dwarf was right. The plan won't work; pack it up and go home."? What would happen if that bridge was eaten by sharks? If want to argue that Redcloak is truly 100% devoted to the Dark One, then you'd have to be willing to assert that Redcloak would immediately obey without question.

By contrast, Durkon _has_ spoken with Thor, and has shown the willingness to question him directly. He's dedicated to Thor because, so far, he hasn't had to choose between being dedicated to Thor and doing what he already thinks is right.




> Besides that, Durkon has shown that he can fall to the same sort of false understanding as Miko. (assuming Thor wanted him to surrender to Miko because it was raining; comic 201)


Okay... so that kind of just proves my point? Thor has nothing against trees, either. 




> I'm also not attributing _every_ decision they make to their gods' wills... just _one_ decision by _one_ Cleric... Redcloak and his position on The Plan.


That's just not true. You're trying to claim that this _one_ decision _must_ be attributed to The Dark One's by asserting that clerics can't ever go against their god's will. But if that was true, then they wouldn't be able to go against their god's will in other circumstances either. And if it's not true, then you have no reason to single this out as the one time that Redcloak can't.




> Not from RC's perspective it isn't. He'd rather see the whole world destroyed than go against The Plan, even if it means his own death.


Nobody is claiming otherwise. What is being pointed out is that "I'd rather destroy the world than lose" is incompatible with "I just want what's best for goblinkind". 




> I do not see the notion that RC is operating under the premise that the Dark One doesn't care about the goblins. Where are you getting this from? (serious question here... not snarking or anything... if you're seeing that perspective somewhere, I'd like to know where as it would be a game-changer on my whole argument) Short of that, RC may have the power to demand concessions from the Dark One, but his character, as far as I can tell, is that of a devoted believer.


Your logic about why Redcloak can't disobey The Dark One's every whim is only viable if Redcloak assumes that The Dark One is cynical and only concerned with power. Otherwise, if Redcloak came to believe that there was a better alternative to _The Plan_, he would think that he could proceed with it because the good of goblinkind is more important to his god. 

You are, in generally, making a lot of mutually contradictory claims. Your chain of logic is made up of assertions that, individually, could be argued to be true or false, but collectively can't all be true. 

-Redcloak is 100% devoted to The Dark One's will
-Redcloak thinks that The Dark One has goblins' best interests in mind
-Redcloak can't abandon the plan if a better alternative appears

Any two of these _could_ be true, but all three _can't_.




> Bottom Line: I think a lot of people are totally discounting Redcloak's degree of devotion to the Dark One as unimportant, whereas I see it as a prime motivation of his.
> As I have said, I guess time will tell the truth of the matter. YMMV.


On the contrary, we're the ones arguing that Redcloak's drive to continue with the plan is intrinsically motivated, while you're trying to justify it with extrinsic motivations.

----------


## WanderingMist

> Snipping a bit for brevity, because as you agree, this is the heart of the matter:
> Yes. And in Start of Darkness, *Spoiler*
> Show
> 
> we see the one person who knew him best make this same argument to him, to choose to abandon what he had shackled himself to this whole time. And we see Redcloak begrudgingly make the choice.
> 
> This is reinforced when he looks in the mirror in his Gobbotopia office and says "It'll all be worth it. You'll see." Redcloak not only can make that choice, he does make that choice every day. Most of the time so reflexively and instinctively that he doesn't even think about it, but when confronted with the choice to go another way, as presented in Start of Darkness and again when confronted by the dwarves.
> 
> Redcloak chooses to stick with it because he's too invested in it and can't bear to imagine that he could still succeed by abandoning it and trying a new route, even when they are presented to him. Because it'll all be worth it. You'll see.


There's also the fact that, even if Redcloak were starting to waver, Jirix relayed him a direct message from TDO relatively recently:

"Don't screw this up."

----------


## tomandtish

> There's also the fact that, even if Redcloak were starting to waver, Jirix relayed him a direct message from TDO relatively recently:
> 
> "Don't screw this up."



A point I've brought up in other threads is: Anything we don't see ourselves is not proof. It may be compelling, but it isn't proof. 

Snarl: Only thing WE (the readers) actually know is that there is/was what appears to be a world on the other side of a gate, and that the Snarl or something similar exists (given what came out near the end of book 5).

EVERYTHING else is something we've been told by others. Jirix's message? Is what Jirix said. He could be lying. He could have dreamed it. Heck, even if it was what the DO said, that doesn't mean that the DO isn't working some other angle that RC is unaware of.

Everything Thor said? He could be lying. He could be misinformed. 

All the flashbacks in crayon are being told by someone who may be right, may be wrong, or may be flat out lying. 

We KNOW very little. The majority is info we are gonna have to decide whether or not to take on faith.

----------


## BloodSquirrel

> A point I've brought up in other threads is: Anything we don't see ourselves is not proof. It may be compelling, but it isn't proof. 
> 
> Snarl: Only thing WE (the readers) actually know is that there is/was what appears to be a world on the other side of a gate, and that the Snarl or something similar exists (given what came out near the end of book 5).
> 
> EVERYTHING else is something we've been told by others. Jirix's message? Is what Jirix said. He could be lying. He could have dreamed it. Heck, even if it was what the DO said, that doesn't mean that the DO isn't working some other angle that RC is unaware of.
> 
> Everything Thor said? He could be lying. He could be misinformed. 
> 
> All the flashbacks in crayon are being told by someone who may be right, may be wrong, or may be flat out lying. 
> ...


Eh... I don't think you have to go that far. The comic hasn't really used the unreliable narrator trope very much.

The bigger problem- as I've pointed out- is that people just assume way too much in situations where we aren't given very many hard facts in the first place. "Don't screw it up" is very ambiguous, and a lot of people take ambiguity as confirmation of their priors. You don't have to think that Redcloak is lying, you just have to strip away the heavily biased narrative he filters his worldview through and you can see that the facts, on their face, don't really support the conclusions he's coming to.

What the comic _has_ done on a very regular basis is provide new information that invalidates people's interpretations of old information.

----------


## woweedd

> Eh... I don't think you have to go that far. The comic hasn't really used the unreliable narrator trope very much.
> 
> The bigger problem- as I've pointed out- is that people just assume way too much in situations where we aren't given very many hard facts in the first place. "Don't screw it up" is very ambiguous, and a lot of people take ambiguity as confirmation of their priors. You don't have to think that Redcloak is lying, you just have to strip away the heavily biased narrative he filters his worldview through and you can see that the facts, on their face, don't really support the conclusions he's coming to.
> 
> What the comic _has_ done on a very regular basis is provide new information that invalidates people's interpretations of old information.


To be fair, it has used unreliable narration. The entire backstory Lord Shojo provided had some...Rather crucial omissions.

----------


## BloodSquirrel

> To be fair, it has used unreliable narration. The entire backstory Lord Shojo provided had some...Rather crucial omissions.


Omissions are different than false information- and what, really, did Shojo omit that he knew or would be relevant at the time? As far as we know, the story he told was basically accurate. There's a lot more to it, but there's always more to every story, and none of it was deceptive.

----------


## woweedd

> Omissions are different than false information- and what, really, did Shojo omit that he knew or would be relevant at the time? As far as we know, the story he told was basically accurate. There's a lot more to it, but there's always more to every story, and none of it was deceptive.


I mean, the story explictly says the second world is our world, when it just isn't. That's not omission, that's just unreliable narration. Shojo wasn't lying, but he didn't have all the info.

----------


## BloodSquirrel

> I mean, the story explictly says the second world is our world, when it just isn't. That's not omission, that's just unreliable narration. Shojo wasn't lying, but he didn't have all the info.


It doesn't, actually. There are a couple of gaps where "It broke out and they tried again" would fit in without directly contradicting anything.

But that's beside the point- the story was still basically true. If Shojo had told the full story, it wouldn't have changed much, other than upping the stakes a little bit. It was Thor's color explanation that really added a new dimension to things. This is very materially different than the kind of "Jirix was lying about what The Dark One said" speculation that tomandtish was talking about.

----------


## Peelee

> It doesn't, actually.


It does. It doesn't use the specific phrasinf "this is the second world and there were nine between it and the first" but it tells the story of gods creating a world, it being destroyed, gods creating a second world, and mortals finding the rifts in that world. It is clearly saying this is the second world, which is what Shojo believed, and which was incorrect.

But, as you say, that's beside the point. We do know that when crayons are broken out it is unreliable narrator. The author has told us that.

----------


## Kish

I think two crayon scenes in 1271+ strips (two, because that's counting the Start of Darkness one) does not contradict "hasn't really used the unreliable narrator trope very much."

I don't think that rules out the possibility that Jirix was lying to Redcloak, since the Dark One's words to Jirix were only stated by him and not shown on-panel, but I also don't think that's very likely.

(A better example than the crayon here would be Redcloak, in Start of Darkness, describing Rat as an evil god, which Rich explicitly spelled out is an inaccuracy that is not a lie and is significant for conveying that Redcloak assumes any ally of the Dark One must be evil; and it still falls under Not Very Much.)

----------


## Peelee

> I think two crayon scenes in 1271+ strips (two, because that's counting the Start of Darkness one) does not contradict "hasn't really used the unreliable narrator trope very much."


I apparently missed the "very much" part of the claim.

----------


## Gurgeh

> (A better example than the crayon here would be Redcloak, in Start of Darkness, describing Rat as an evil god, which Rich explicitly spelled out is an inaccuracy that is not a lie and is significant for conveying that Redcloak assumes any ally of the Dark One must be evil; and it still falls under Not Very Much.)


Rat isn't referred to as an evil god in Start of Darkness, even by Redcloak - only Loki and Tiamat are shown to take TDO's side in the initial confrontation where Redcloak's narration refers to "older evil gods". Rat turns up later (alongside Tiamat) when TDO is asking about the Snarl; in this scene, Redcloak characterises it as TDO "confront[ing] his few allies among the elder gods".

So while a reader could certainly be forgiven for assuming Rat was evil based on SoD's flashbacks (it'd be a natural inference to draw that Rat, associating with the explicitly evil gods who've sided with TDO, would share their alignment), neither the book or Redcloak said as much.

----------


## Rad

> Anyway what I wonder is if sunk cost doesn't have a value if you do have limited time? A scenario where you invest resources for some gain, and based on what you get, you make your next decision. The alternative of ignoring whatever you got seems unlikely to be better?
> 
> Here is an example. In a game of chess you have 2.5 hours to finish a game, so does your opponent, so in total of 5 hours. The game may be 50 moves long, that means each player makes 50 moves for a total of 100 moves... 5 hours for a 100 moves may sound like a lot, but you actually only have 3 minutes per move in average.
> With sound time investment, a large part of the moves does not require 3 minutes, but even if we eliminate half the moves it still leaves out 6 minutes per move.
> Now I won't go into chess terminology, but imagine you have a position that requires you to think a lot.. So far you have invested your time well, so you can afford at least 30 minutes to consider your options, but then you get absorbed in a specific line of moves for the majority of the duration and now you really cannot spend any more time considering the position. Yet all you have for the time spend is a very deep understanding of one move and the variations which follows, and a very shallow understanding of perhaps two other moves.
> You have realized that the move you spend the most time on will give you a position from which you have to fight for a draw if your opponent plays correctly, and you also know there are many ways your opponent can go wrong (perhaps the very reason you were lured to spend so much time on this particular move). However, presently, you see nothing wrong with one of the other moves you considered, and the third you decided to disregard completely, as it doesn't seem to be any good. Also you just discovered a fourth move that you haven't really looked at, but at first glance it does look like a forced win for you, or close to at least.
> 
> So what do you do? Please have in mind all moves are supposed to be very complicated, so you cannot be very confident in any other move than the one move you don't think is very good if your opponent plays well against it.
> 
> ...


(I'll get to your chess example, I promise)

The sunk cost fallacy is a fallacy as a _process_ to come to a conclusion. It _can_ happen that the "best" conclusion is the one that has been invested into, but the decision on which conclusion to take should be based on what the situation is at decision time.

It is noteworthy that the situation at the decision time will include everything that came from the previous investment. The key issue here is that the "sunk cost fallacy" evaluates based on the *cost* of the investment rather than its *outcome*.

In the chess example, you invested some time into exploring a branch that would promise you a draw but not a win. Now you have to evaluate on what to do based on the information you acquired and the time you have _left_ (NOT the time you have spent). Taking the draw might be a good or great option depending on how you estimate a number of factors but it can also be bad.
The point is that you should choose based on what you have (information and time left), not on what you spent to get it.
 Maybe you had a material advantage and the information is useful in the sense that you now know not to follow that sub-par branch. Maybe you're left with too little time to play anything else and trying to make a different move is a sure loss (in this last case you painted yourself in a corner and made a blunder, which is hardly a situation where you can brag you've been right all along).

----------


## brian 333

Sunk cost fallacy: Give me liberty or give me death!

Not sunk cost fallacy: Give me liberty or life so I can take another shot at liberty later on.

Sunk Cost, the amount invested already, is gone and usually cannot be retrieved. Using the amount spent to justify future actions, ("I've killed so many to get here, killing a few more won't matter!") Is the fallacy. There may not be better options than the one you are pursuing, but the decision should be based on what it will take moving forward, not based on what it took to get to the decision point.

For example, having killed so many to get this far, now I evaluate the situation and plan to move forward with what has been learned. The cost going forward will be only what is needed to attain my optimum outcome. Killing may still be required to succeed, but the point is, I weigh projected future cost against likely future gain.

The same decision based in Sunk Cost would be, "I've killed to get this far, so if I just keep killing, eventually I will accomplish my goal." In this case, future cost is not important. Only the cost already paid matters.

----------


## gbaji

> Sunk cost fallacy: Give me liberty or give me death!
> 
> Not sunk cost fallacy: Give me liberty or life so I can take another shot at liberty later on.


To be fair, that's actually a false dilemma fallacy.




> Sunk Cost, the amount invested already, is gone and usually cannot be retrieved. Using the amount spent to justify future actions, ("I've killed so many to get here, killing a few more won't matter!") Is the fallacy. There may not be better options than the one you are pursuing, but the decision should be based on what it will take moving forward, not based on what it took to get to the decision point.
> 
> For example, having killed so many to get this far, now I evaluate the situation and plan to move forward with what has been learned. The cost going forward will be only what is needed to attain my optimum outcome. Killing may still be required to succeed, but the point is, I weigh projected future cost against likely future gain.
> 
> The same decision based in Sunk Cost would be, "I've killed to get this far, so if I just keep killing, eventually I will accomplish my goal." In this case, future cost is not important. Only the cost already paid matters.


That's still not technically correct. The fallacy is that "I've killed this many, so they will have died for nothing if I don't finish what I started." It's not about whether killing more people is needed or desired (or should become some sort of habit, I guess), but that this cost has already been paid, and somehow should factor into the equation.

"Many Bothans died to get us this information" (from Return of the Jedi) is a sunk cost fallacy. It implies that the reason they must succeed isn't because of the value of success relative to failure, nor that it's worth the additional risk for the reward of stoping the second death star (althouh it clearly is), but that if they fail, those lives will have been lost for nothing. Of course, we're not explicitely told that the reason to succeed is because of that cost, so it's not 100% certain. I'm reasonably sure they would have gone forward with the plan even if no one had died along the way, so we can probably just chalk it up to dramatic language. But yeah,  it's still there, hanging over their heads, presumably pressuring them in some way to "make those lives worth the cost". Maybe...

It's worth noting that there's a reason why logical fallacies are commonly used in debates. They are actually quite effective at motivating people and inspiring emotions.

----------


## brian 333

> *Spoiler*
> Show
> 
> To be fair, that's actually a false dilemma fallacy.
> 
> 
> 
> That's still not technically correct. The fallacy is that "I've killed this many, so they will have died for nothing if I don't finish what I started." It's not about whether killing more people is needed or desired (or should become some sort of habit, I guess), but that this cost has already been paid, and somehow should factor into the equation.
> 
> ...


A fair criticism. Though the first bit was a shot at humor. I keep forgetting that to be internet-funny I need to include some cat videos, or perhaps a guy getting hit in the 'nads.

----------


## BloodSquirrel

> To be fair, that's actually a false dilemma fallacy.


It's neither. It's a statement of personal value, phrased as an imperative. A false dilemma is when you state that there are only two options. Saying that you would prefer death to all but one of the options is just establishing a rank order of your preferences.




> It's worth noting that there's a reason why logical fallacies are commonly used in debates. They are actually quite effective at motivating people and inspiring emotions.


As I've pointed out before, people who are engaging in the sunk cost fallacy usually aren't doing so explicitly. What usually happens is that it biases them toward a conclusion, which they then rationalize as the correct conclusion using optimistic assumptions, pessimistic assumptions regarding the alternatives, and potentially some other logical fallacies thrown into the mix.

"If I just keep killing, I'll win eventually" is the kind of conclusion that someone might come to as a _result_ of the sunk cost fallacy, even if it isn't an example of the fallacy itself.

----------


## gbaji

> A fair criticism. Though the first bit was a shot at humor. I keep forgetting that to be internet-funny I need to include some cat videos, or perhaps a guy getting hit in the 'nads.


Hah! Fair enough.

I think I've been somewhat programmed over time to make sure even when responding to a joke to make some statement clarifying any incorrect assumption contained within that joke (although I do usually try to say something like "I'm sure you're joking, but..."). I do try to restrict this to jokes resting on an incorrect assumption about the subject of the topic itself though (like what a sunk cost fallacy is in this case).

I've been burned in far too many online discussions where such jokes are used to prime a positive response (to the joke), and later used to dismiss disagreement (to the incorrect assumption contained within the joke) based on that initial positive rsponse ("well, you didn't think it was wrong before", "now you're backpedalling so you clearly don't know what you're talking about", etc...). Yeah.

Not at all saying that's what you were doing, of course. Just clarifying why I responded that way. I'd love it if jokes were always just jokes and we could all just laugh and move on. But, unfortunately, on the interwebs, it's sometimes impossible to tell if someone is making a clearly incorrect statement as a joke, or it's something they actually think is true and by presenting it in joke form, they hope to get people to appear to agree with them (or something). Dunno. There are weird people on the internet. And I'm certainly one of them.  :Biggrin: 






> It's neither. It's a statement of personal value, phrased as an imperative. A false dilemma is when you state that there are only two options. Saying that you would prefer death to all but one of the options is just establishing a rank order of your preferences.


Oh absolutely. But if it *were* a fallacy, it would be a false dilemma. Like if Patrick Henry actually believed there were only two options or something.

----------


## pearl jam

It's not that, either, though. The issue isn't that he believed those were the only two options available. It's that he was rejecting all the other alternatives.  If he could not have liberty, then the only other option that was acceptable to him was death.

----------


## Peelee

*The Mod on the Silver Mountain:* Let's change examples.

----------


## brian 333

> *The Mod on the Silver Mountain:* Let's change examples.


I'm playing chess and I performed a castle early and dedicated my strategy to defense. My opponent has foolishly left himself vulnerable to a queen-bishop trap. Instead of going for the trap I continue to work my defense because it was the plan I put my effort in, and all that effort would be wasted if I changed strategies.

Whether my defense will work or not is unknown, and beside the point. Whether the trap would have worked is likewise beside the point. What makes it a sunk cost fallacy is that I based my decision on what I have already spent rather than what I must spend going forward, and the likelihood of either method succeeding.

So long as Redcloak's decisions are based on making sure the sacrifices were worth it, he is stuck in sunk cost.

----------


## BaronOfHell

> I'm playing chess and I performed a castle early and dedicated my strategy to defense. My opponent has foolishly left himself vulnerable to a queen-bishop trap. Instead of going for the trap I continue to work my defense because it was the plan I put my effort in, and all that effort would be wasted if I changed strategies.


Ah! But haven't you heard, offense is the best defense.. :p

----------


## gbaji

> I'm playing chess and I performed a castle early and dedicated my strategy to defense. My opponent has foolishly left himself vulnerable to a queen-bishop trap. Instead of going for the trap I continue to work my defense because it was the plan I put my effort in, and all that effort would be wasted if I changed strategies.
> 
> Whether my defense will work or not is unknown, and beside the point. Whether the trap would have worked is likewise beside the point. What makes it a sunk cost fallacy is that I based my decision on what I have already spent rather than what I must spend going forward, and the likelihood of either method succeeding.
> 
> So long as Redcloak's decisions are based on making sure the sacrifices were worth it, he is stuck in sunk cost.


If Redcloak were to declare that his choices were to continue with the Plan or accept Durkon's offer to seal the rifts (each being equally viable and acceptable in his mind), would anyone label that as a sunk cost fallacy? No, we wouldn't.

It's the futher decision to choose A over B because of a sunk cost that makes it a sunk cost fallacy. The mere existence of a choice does not.


And to be fair, the two fallacies really exist in different modes. Typically, the sunk cost fallacy is internal. It's a fallacy one engages in when making decisions. It's one tricking oneself into making a poor decision. The false dilemma fallacy is usually external. It's about tricking an opponent into making a poor decision by presenting them with only poor decisions to make. If Brian's opponent were to table talk and say "Well Brian, you have to choose between taking my Queen or continuing your defensive strategy. What's it gonna be?", it's possible said opponent has realized that there's some other move Brian could make that would demolish their own position, so they make it seem as though Brian only has those two choices to make. If Brian accepts the "false dilemma" and spends all his time considering the pros and cons of just those two options, maybe he misses a much better move.

The point being that declaring that there are only two choices isn't about what the person making the declaration is choosing for themselves, but what he want's to trick his opponent into thinking are the only two choices available. Which is why I labeled it a false dilemma in the first place.

----------


## WanderingMist

> "Many Bothans died to get us this information" (from Return of the Jedi) is a sunk cost fallacy. It implies that the reason they must succeed isn't because of the value of success relative to failure, nor that it's worth the additional risk for the reward of stoping the second death star (althouh it clearly is), but that if they fail, those lives will have been lost for nothing. Of course, we're not explicitely told that the reason to succeed is because of that cost, so it's not 100% certain. I'm reasonably sure they would have gone forward with the plan even if no one had died along the way, so we can probably just chalk it up to dramatic language. But yeah,  it's still there, hanging over their heads, presumably pressuring them in some way to "make those lives worth the cost". Maybe...


This would only be "sunk cost fallacy" if they kept going with only the information the Bothans brought them when new, better things came up, e.g., if they later learned that Palpatine was not, in fact, on board the Death Star and was in fact on Coruscant, yet continued with their plan as though he were still aboard it.

----------


## gbaji

> This would only be "sunk cost fallacy" if they kept going with only the information the Bothans brought them when new, better things came up, e.g., if they later learned that Palpatine was not, in fact, on board the Death Star and was in fact on Coruscant, yet continued with their plan as though he were still aboard it.


The sunk cost is the dead Bothans, not whether the information they obtained is accurate. The dead Bothans should not have had any impact on their decision to go forward regardless of other conditions or changing information later. If it did, it was a logical fallacy, again, regardless of whether new information came to light or not.

I'll also point out (think I may have touched on this before) the difference between argument and debate. Argument is what you use to make decisions. Logical fallacies should be avoided when making arguments (and decisions based on them) because arguments are based on logic, and logical fallacies are, well, not logical (duh). Debate, on the other hand, is what you use to influence other people to join you in some way (perhaps to get them to act on a decision you've made). Logical fallacies are common and to be honest, quite effective, in debate.

The statement about the dead Bothans is a logical fallacy (sunk cost). But in the case it was used, it's not inappropriate to make it. Mon Motha is not (hopefully) actually using their deaths to make her own decision, but to inspire her people to go forward with the plan. Logical fallacies are terrible methods to use to make decisions, but great methods to get other people to act on them.

Win one for the Gipper, right? Almost every rallying cry ever noted historically includes some form of sunk cost reference. People wouldn't use them (and we wouldn't still remember them often centuries or more later) if they weren't effective.

----------


## Peelee

> The sunk cost is the dead Bothans, not whether the information they obtained is accurate. The dead Bothans should not have had any impact on their decision to go forward regardless of other conditions or changing information later. If it did, it was a logical fallacy, again, regardless of whether new information came to light or not.
> 
> I'll also point out (think I may have touched on this before) the difference between argument and debate. Argument is what you use to make decisions. Logical fallacies should be avoided when making arguments (and decisions based on them) because arguments are based on logic, and logical fallacies are, well, not logical (duh). Debate, on the other hand, is what you use to influence other people to join you in some way (perhaps to get them to act on a decision you've made). Logical fallacies are common and to be honest, quite effective, in debate.
> 
> The statement about the dead Bothans is a logical fallacy (sunk cost). But in the case it was used, it's not inappropriate to make it. Mon Motha is not (hopefully) actually using their deaths to make her own decision, but to inspire her people to go forward with the plan. Logical fallacies are terrible methods to use to make decisions, but great methods to get other people to act on them.
> 
> Win one for the Gipper, right? Almost every rallying cry ever noted historically includes some form of sunk cost reference. People wouldn't use them (and we wouldn't still remember them often centuries or more later) if they weren't effective.


Those aren't sunk costs. They're motivational tools. They were going to try to win regardless of if Gipper died, the coach just wants them to honor him. The Rebels would have tried to attack the Death Star even if the Bothans who got the information all lived, she was just stating how much it cost them. In either case, the desired result would have still been tried for either way, so it can't be a sunk cost.

----------


## gbaji

> Those aren't sunk costs. They're motivational tools.


They are both. Sunk costs tend to act as motivators, which is why they are used to motivate people. It's also why the fallacy exists though. It's because we humans are strongly wired to be motivated by those costs, but in reality they should not actually be used when making decisions.

In a purely logical reasoned calculation, those decisions should all be ones the folks involved should want to do anyway. We both agree on that. The baseball team wants to win whether Gipp existed or not. The Rebels want to destroy the Death Star regardless of whether or not Bothans died to get the info. Numerous military forces throughout the ages all want to win the battle/war regardless of whether they "Remember <insert name of person/place/ship/whatever lost in battle previously>!".

So why do leaders mention these things? It should not make a difference at all, as you said. But it clearly does. And the reason it does is because people react emotionaly (and irrationally) to sunk costs. Most people are susceptible to the fallacy and will be influenced by it and allow it to affect their decision making processes. If it didn't, leaders wouldn't continue to use it.

But yeah, from the point of view of the people being motivated? To the degree that it actually motivates them? That's a sunk cost fallacy on their part. It should not matter what previous costs were incurred when making decisions, but if by being reminded of that cost, you play harder, or fight harder, or are willing to take greater risks and make greater sacrifices, then *you* are committing the sunk cost fallacy. And again, it clearly works, so yeah, clearly a lot of people fall into it. It's human nature. If it wasn't, it wouldn't work, and leaders wouldn't use it.

----------


## Peelee

> They are both.


Again, they did not affect the choice to pursue the actions. Whether Gipper died or not, Notre Dame would still have tried to win. If the Bothans got the info with no casualties, the rebels would have still assaulted the second Death Star. There was no sunk cost that influenced anything.

----------


## Snails

If a person in a leadership position makes a sober logical decision, are they somehow duty bound to abstain from using emotional and arguably irrational arguments to motivate the people implementing the plan?

Of course, not.  Peelee is correct that the Sunk Cost Fallacy is about the _decision_, specifically an incorrectly framed context for a decision, not the details of the implementation.

----------


## WanderingMist

This is from the Wikipedia article about the fallacy:

"Or, if they hold private information about the undesirability of abandoning a project, it is fully rational to persist with a project that outsiders think displays the fallacy of sunk cost."

Redcloak is in the opposite situation, he has private information about the undesirability of _continuing_ the project, yet continues to act as though the project must be completed.

----------


## Reach Weapon

> Redcloak is in the opposite situation, he has private information about the undesirability of _continuing_ the project, yet continues to act as though the project must be completed.


In so far as Redcloak's belief that information provided by those dwarves is untrustworthy and misleading is accurate he's not actually in that situation. As such, I don't think this is good evidence he's engaging in the sunk cost fallacy, even should that belief prove to be wrong.

----------


## Kish

> In so far as Redcloak's belief that information provided by those dwarves is untrustworthy and misleading is accurate he's not actually in that situation.


Similarly, insofar as Redcloak's belief in the dangers of dihydrogen monoxide is accurate, he's being very logical in avoiding drinking water.

----------


## brian 333

> In so far as Redcloak's belief that information provided by those dwarves is untrustworthy and misleading is accurate he's not actually in that situation. As such, I don't think this is good evidence he's engaging in the sunk cost fallacy, even should that belief prove to be wrong.


I agree that Redcloak does not believe Durkon. Durkon is not the only source of information Redcloak has. He has been at four gates so far, and every time so far the result has been a destroyed gate. Even if we assume Durkon lied or was deceived by those lying gods of Good, Redcloak has ample evidence that his attempt to secure this gate at this time is most likely to result in a destroyed gate.

He is literally pursuing a goal that he knows is unlikely to be achieved, but he refuses to believe that because he is trying to make his sacrifices 'worth it.'

----------


## Reach Weapon

> [...] the dangers of dihydrogen monoxide [...]


Unless I am watery-gravely mistaken, sunk costs are amoungst those dangers.




> He is literally pursuing a goal that he knows is unlikely to be achieved [...]


On the other hand, Redcloak was explicitly directed to not screw it up, not to give up. Then he added, "No pressure, though," which I thought was nice.

----------


## Peelee

> I agree that Redcloak does not believe Durkon. Durkon is not the only source of information Redcloak has. He has been at four gates so far, and every time so far the result has been a destroyed gate. Even if we assume Durkon lied or was deceived by those lying gods of Good, Redcloak has ample evidence that his attempt to secure this gate at this time is most likely to result in a destroyed gate.
> 
> He is literally pursuing a goal that he knows is unlikely to be achieved, but he refuses to believe that because he is trying to make his sacrifices 'worth it.'


Devil's Advocate, plan B is the destruction of the world so the failure of plan A resulting in that is still a success, as far as The Plan goes.



> Unless I am watery-gravely mistaken, sunk costs are amoungst those dangers.


Ok that got a good laugh out of me.

----------


## Solomon Draak

RedCloak isn't dealing with a simple sunk cost fallacy: he has literally nothing left to live for if he doesn't go along with the Plan.
To consider alternatives would be, inevitably, to give up his allegiance with the Dark One. Something he dedicated his whole life, to which he sacrificed his family, his eye, his dignity... everything.
And the Dark One is the only existing goblin god. Right or wrong, the only divine sanction, justification and validation a goblin can find, barring worshipping foreign gods that despise goblins.

And... RedCloack own conscience, sure. He's not a total psycho, he carries an huge burden of guilt. He feels every death, goblin or hobgoblin, and that of his brother more than anything else - a brother that was almost his son, since he raised him - which means that he would probably consider suicide if the Plan fails.

In short, I think there are sunk cost fallacies, but there are also points of no return, and RedCloak crossed his no-return point long ago.

----------


## Coppercloud

> RedCloak isn't dealing with a simple sunk cost fallacy: he has literally nothing left to live for if he doesn't go along with the Plan.
> To consider alternatives would be, inevitably, to give up his allegiance with the Dark One.


Not necessarily. He could alter the plan, having learned that the Dark One has leverage as the wielder of a fourth color. Even if he has no reason to trust the dwarves, he could still explore this possibility. Even if he has trouble communicating with his own god, he could find a way to relay a message (maybe by sacrificing a fanatic, just to raise him hours or days later, since this apparently enabled Jirix to talked to Him).

As far as we know, the Dark One's goal is to get power for the goblins, to be on equal footing (or, if possible, better off) with/than the other races. The Plan is just a means to that end.

----------

