Is the sunk cost fallacy always a fallacy?

[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.