Is the sunk cost fallacy always a fallacy?

[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.