Quote Originally Posted by brian 333 View Post
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.