Is the sunk cost fallacy always a fallacy?

[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.

[TheNecrocomicon]

It seems pretty clear to me that Redcloak's downfall and eventual lack of redemption is going to come about because he's gone way past the point at which he might have been willing to change course, and is so totally and utterly devoted to what he thinks "The Plan" is that he's not going to listen to anyone else, ever.

Like Soon said (probably with more than a handful of author commentary), redemption is a rare thing and not everyone can genuinely pull it off. Redcloak is downright the single most unreasonable and dogmatic goblinoid character depicted in-comic (and possibly the most so overall, if Miko hadn't existed). Everyone else among goblinoids, right down to Jirix as his right-hand associate, is more pragmatic than Redcloak is.

Hell, for all we know, "The Plan" might have actually changed in Redcloak's lifetime since he first learned about it, but since his link to the Dark One is non-verbal, and he's never died to meet the big guy himself, the most we have to conclusively go on is that he hasn't bungled whatever-it-is to the point of losing his god's divine favour and associated bestowed powers.

So even aside from the need for his god's quiddity, Redcloak might even be sunk-cost-fallacying himself down even the wrong rabbit hole in the end, and both we and him won't know until the eventual colossal gambit pileup hits and things really hit the fan and settle wherever they're going to settle.

[brian 333]

It seems pretty clear to me that Redcloak's downfall and eventual lack of redemption ...

If any character in this story is more in need of redemption than Redcloak, we have not yet seen her.

Redemption is not something that is absolute. One does not always become a paragon of Lawful Good when achieving redemption. There are degrees, and even vectors, of redemption. For Redcloak, meeting his deity and standing up for the goblin race may be such an opportunity.

As an example, Redcloak confronting TDO with the fact that The Plan is a failure, and presenting TDO with a better option that leverages what The Plan has gained them so far to achieve what RC and TDO claim they want to achieve via The Plan. (Trade wishful thinking for concrete gains.)

For Redcloak, such an accommodation would be a redemption, in that it removes the dangers to goblins and everyone else, and resets him on his original path toward his goal of equality for goblins.

[TheNecrocomicon]

If any character in this story is more in need of redemption than Redcloak, we have not yet seen her.

Redemption is not something that is absolute. One does not always become a paragon of Lawful Good when achieving redemption. There are degrees, and even vectors, of redemption. For Redcloak, meeting his deity and standing up for the goblin race may be such an opportunity.

As an example, Redcloak confronting TDO with the fact that The Plan is a failure, and presenting TDO with a better option that leverages what The Plan has gained them so far to achieve what RC and TDO claim they want to achieve via The Plan. (Trade wishful thinking for concrete gains.)

For Redcloak, such an accommodation would be a redemption, in that it removes the dangers to goblins and everyone else, and resets him on his original path toward his goal of equality for goblins.

I wasn't putting hard limits on what "redemption" could look like, so I'd appreciate words not being put in my mouth.

Why I think Redcloak is going to be one of those characters who turns away from redemption to his own self-destruction -- to paraphrase how the author put it somewhere how some characters tend to go -- is that Redcloak has been offered, time and again, ways and opportunities to alter his thinking on "The Plan" and the advancement of the goblinoid races in general, and he keeps rejecting it and insisting on doubling down on a path of domination and subjugation and malignant speciesism. He's a prisoner of his own overly dogmatic thinking and seems to have no inclination to expand those limits.

Admittedly, Durkon's attempt at diplomacy earlier in the current book was weak as all Nine Hells, but Redcloak barely budged to consider it before going straight to kill-the-messenger mode. He's so stuck on this "advancing goblinoids means crushing and subjugating everyone else" path -- which is patently Evil, whether Lawful or Chaotic or anywhere in between -- that the idea that substantial goblinoid advancements in equitable treatment can in fact be obtained diplomatically seems to be beyond his capacity to comprehend.

Redcloak may "need" redemption arguably more than anyone else in the comic, and maybe even deserve it, but that doesn't mean that his thinking and character traits are necessarily going to lead there. Someone who keeps doubling down on their flaws and fallacies and errors isn't the kind of person who's suddenly going to turn around and discard their tunnel-vision focus on a plan in favour of more pragmatic ideas.

[brian 333]

I apologize for appearing to put words in your mouth. My intent was solely to frame my argument.
Your thesis is sound. I have a difficult time reconciling a Redcloak incapable of personal growth with the need of his cooperation to conclude the story. Therefore I favor the epiphany in which Redcloak places goblin welfare above his own.

[Fyraltari]

The way I see it, Redcloak will never abandon the Plan or Xykon on his own and no living mortal has a deep enough emotionnal connection with him to make him reconsider. Therefore for his redemption to happen he needs a serious shock. I see two way this could happen:
A) He somehow gets to talk with the Dark One who tells him to change course.
B) The plan fails or is somehow rendered unworkable. This to me would require a betrayal from one of the other two essential parties: Xykon refusing to go along or having some ace-in-the-hole allowing him to hijack the ritual or Redcloak receiving undeniable proof that the Dark One does not actually intends to help the goblins of this world or any other. Or more likely, some other way I can't think of.

As I find the lack of communication with the Dark One suspicious, I expect there's a reveal about him incoming.

[TheNecrocomicon]

I apologize for appearing to put words in your mouth. My intent was solely to frame my argument.
Your thesis is sound. I have a difficult time reconciling a Redcloak incapable of personal growth with the need of his cooperation to conclude the story. Therefore I favor the epiphany in which Redcloak places goblin welfare above his own.

Oh, no worries, sorry for getting needlessly testy with you there. I mean, I hope you and others are right and he has such an event or process that causes him to come around. I guess I just fall on the pessimistic side of not seeing it as realistic under the state of the story as it has and continues to exist.

The way I see it, Redcloak will never abandon the Plan or Xykon on his own and no living mortal has a deep enough emotional connection with him to make him reconsider. Therefore for his redemption to happen he needs a serious shock. I see two way this could happen:
A) He somehow gets to talk with the Dark One who tells him to change course.
B) The plan fails or is somehow rendered unworkable. This to me would require a betrayal from one of the other two essential parties: Xykon refusing to go along or having some ace-in-the-hole allowing him to hijack the ritual or Redcloak receiving undeniable proof that the Dark One does not actually intends to help the goblins of this world or any other. Or more likely, some other way I can't think of.

As I find the lack of communication with the Dark One suspicious, I expect there's a reveal about him incoming.

Yeah by this point, Redcloak has sunk his life and identity so totally into "The Plan" as he thinks it is, that for it to fall apart or be revealed as impossible would utterly break him. He has nothing else because he has cut away everything else. He's almost a living analogy to the lich he helped create; only while Xykon physically cast off all mortal trappings including his own flesh, Redcloak has done so mentally and emotionally and relationally to everyone else.

But also yes, the pointed lack of actual direct communication with the Dark One is so pronounced that it seems it has to be intentional. Everything we've heard about him has been second-hand via unreliable narrators, and no one can truly read minds, much less the mind of a god. Maybe the Dark One is nicer than he's been made out to be; just as easily, or perhaps more so, he could be an utter jerkass who only cares about his own advancement and has lost touch with his once-fellow goblinoids to the extent of using them as tools and minions just like other gods have done.

Redcloak has staked absolutely everything about himself on the sanctity of "The Plan"; without it, or if it falls apart, he's nothing and I suspect he realizes that on some level. Also it strikes me that the detail about the Crimson Mantle making him immortal must also be intentional for story purposes; once his Plan is complete, or it falls apart, the magic of the artifact created to enable it will probably also fade, leaving him mortal again, or possibly resulting in rapid-aging-to-natural-death once he can no longer attune to it, reuniting him with his brother temporarily or permanently in the goblinoid afterlife.

[Oromin]

It seems to me that Redcloak isn't engaged in the sunk cost fallacy right now. He certainly has been in the past. Most notably with his brother and after Roy destroyed Xykon. But at the current moment I feel like his behavior is reasonable.
Right now there's no readily available alternative to Xykon to complete the Plan, and there's not much cost to keeping him around a bit longer. Trying to get rid of him also has non trivial risk.

To convince him to abandon the Plan right now I think you need to take Xykon off the table entirely. At that point there's very little risk to at least trying to work with Durkon. I don't actually think this will happen because the planet in the rift has me convinced that some major curveball is still in store.

[KorvinStarmast]

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.

While Redcloak initially rejected Durkon's offer, he does now have new information to work with. But it will take another scene, and another effort, and I suspect a change in circumstances for him to see that opportunity as a different way to achieve his long term goals. Catalyst? I expect that to be the IFCC and the big reveal on their vessel, artifact, fireworks, and so on. (Strip 1183).

Why I think Redcloak is going to be one of those characters who turns away from redemption to his own self-destruction -- to paraphrase how the author put it somewhere how some characters tend to go -- is that Redcloak has been offered, time and again, ways and opportunities to alter his thinking on "The Plan" and the advancement of the goblinoid races in general, and he keeps rejecting it and insisting on doubling down on a path of domination and subjugation and malignant speciesism. He's a prisoner of his own overly dogmatic thinking and seems to have no inclination to expand those limits.

All true, particularly when we fold Start of Darkness into his thought process. But he is capable of having that Aha! moment. (Panels 12-14)

I have a difficult time reconciling a Redcloak incapable of personal growth with the need of his cooperation to conclude the story. Therefore I favor the epiphany in which Redcloak places goblin welfare above his own.

Durkon gave him a glimpse that there is an option ... more on that later, I suspect, once the IFCC's dire plot becomes clear.

To convince him to abandon the Plan right now I think you need to take Xykon off the table entirely.

As I understand it, there is a party of 6 adventurers, two paladins, and an epic level rogue who may be able to do something about that.

[gbaji]

Let me first respond that I'm totally aware that I'm presenting an "odd" point here. So take that for what it's worth.

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?

Not at all. The leader should use the emotional/irrational methods to inspire/motivate the people into action. It's absolutely the correct thing to do.

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.

Yes. But the leader is not the only person making a decision here. The leader is making the decision to have their followers charge into battle, attack the Death Star, try to win the game, etc. The leader's followers, soldiers, and players are *also* making a decision. To risk their lives charging into battle and/or attacking the Death Star, or push themselves a little harder (perhaps risking injury) to try to win the game, than they otherwise might if just acting purely on a rational decision.

Technically, all of those people, if they do push themselves harder, take greater risks, etc than they would do otherwise absent the motivational speech, are engaging in a sunk cost fallacy (again, if the speech includes some "cost" that must be made up for in some way, of course). And yes, just to the degree that this does have an effect on the resulting effort on their parts (which is, obviously, difficult to measure).

Er. But it's somewhat assumed that leaders wouldn't use such speeches if they didn't work, right? Ergo, we must assume some degree of sunk cost decision making on the part of those who hear the speech for whom said speech "worked". Yeah. It's a really minor point here, but it's still a factor that is present in such things. We use them because they work. They work because most people, caught up in the moment of a motivational speech, don't actually stop and examine what exact language and techniques are being used to motivate them. They just react. It is because it is.

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.'

To be fair, the same argument can be made about what the OotS is doing too. Both sides know that this is the final gate, and so destroying it is not (or less of) an option. And, honestly, that plays more in Redcloaks favor than the OotS. He knows they can't risk destroying the gate to thwart "the plan" anymore. So the odds of success are greater.

Interestingly enough, while the gods did discuss contingencies for destroying the world quickly in the event the last gate is destroyed and the snarl breaks free (which we might assume is some sort of standing contingency and requires no additional discussion or agreement to enact), there was no apparent discussion of what action to take in the event that team evil gains control of the gate. Some of them clearly seem aware of the real plan by TDO, but it's unclear if any specific decision to block that has been reached. The only decsicion they voted on was whether to destroy the world "right now" instead of waiting for the snarl to break free first (again, assuming "destroy the world" is an automatic response to that eventuality).

So it's not as crazy or fallacious for him to continue with "the plan" as it may appear at first. If the gods don't have a previously agreed upon action in response to TDO taking control of the gate, and they fiddle faddle around as much in responding, it's entirely possible that TDO's plan could still work. He could threaten them with the snarl, they might respond by taking more direct action to provide him with what he demands, and he "wins". Although more likely, the very actions the gods would have to take to comply with his demands would destabilize the material plane and release the snarl there anyway, so "winning" isn't such a great thing anyway.

But yeah. There's nothing automatic that says that "team evil completing the ritual on the gate" means "gods destroy the world".

[Dasick]

Generally speaking, logical fallacies aren't (sic). Being "rational" all the time is extremely time consuming and someone trying to do it is going to be stuck in analysis paralysis limbo. What people call fallacies are really just a number of shortcuts that work on a complex level that's difficult to put in words. They work pretty well most of the time. You only really have to watch out for them when they're not working, a minority of the time, and only when it's a possible massive detriment.

The reason sunk costs is a prevalent thing people do is well, as a general rule of thumb, when you invest resources into something, it's going to be easier to get more of a payoff from it if you continue investing.

In Redcloack's case, it is however a massive detriment. But also, Redcloack's character is that he is this "rational" nerd when in reality he has a lot of emotional baggage (which he may refuse to examine on account of him thinking of himself as so smart and rational). It's very good writing, and Oona does a good job of highlighting it with the two villages metaphor.

Another thing is, Durkon tried to go for the old "pass a speech check to make someone do a 180" trope, of which rpgs both tabletop and computer are chock full. Hell, people will praise crpgs that do it like the original fallout or arcanum. Problem is, that's not how changing someone's mind works in real life. It might be simply the case that Redcloack needs some time to think on it, come to terms with it, consider his options etc. Imo his attempt to kill Durkon there and then was a reasonably good decision. Even if the dwarf isn't lying, the deities of the OOTS universe have screwed over goblins and Thor tried killing the Dark One anyways. So there's no real good reason to trust them from his perspective anyways.

[woweedd]

Generally speaking, logical fallacies aren't (sic). Being "rational" all the time is extremely time consuming and someone trying to do it is going to be stuck in analysis paralysis limbo. What people call fallacies are really just a number of shortcuts that work on a complex level that's difficult to put in words. They work pretty well most of the time. You only really have to watch out for them when they're not working, a minority of the time, and only when it's a possible massive detriment.

The reason sunk costs is a prevalent thing people do is well, as a general rule of thumb, when you invest resources into something, it's going to be easier to get more of a payoff from it if you continue investing.

In Redcloack's case, it is however a massive detriment. But also, Redcloack's character is that he is this "rational" nerd when in reality he has a lot of emotional baggage (which he may refuse to examine on account of him thinking of himself as so smart and rational). It's very good writing, and Oona does a good job of highlighting it with the two villages metaphor.

Another thing is, Durkon tried to go for the old "pass a speech check to make someone do a 180" trope, of which rpgs both tabletop and computer are chock full. Hell, people will praise crpgs that do it like the original fallout or arcanum. Problem is, that's not how changing someone's mind works in real life. It might be simply the case that Redcloack needs some time to think on it, come to terms with it, consider his options etc. Imo his attempt to kill Durkon there and then was a reasonably good decision. Even if the dwarf isn't lying, the deities of the OOTS universe have screwed over goblins and Thor tried killing the Dark One anyways. So there's no real good reason to trust them from his perspective anyways.

Pedantic, but you're kinda mischartizing the end of the original Fallout. You don't talk The Master out of his plan, and, indeed, you can't. To him, his plan is worth any cost. You have to gather evidence throughout the game that proves his plan straight up will not work. And even then, he doesn't belive you. You have to get him to ask his own Super Mutants if any of them have gotten pregnant, providing definitive proof that you're telling the truth, before he's convinced. It's not "pass a speech check, he does a 180".

[Dasick]

Pedantic, but you're kinda mischartizing the end of the original Fallout. You don't talk The Master out of his plan, and, indeed, you can't. To him, his plan is worth any cost. You have to gather evidence throughout the game that proves his plan straight up will not work. And even then, he doesn't belive you. You have to get him to ask his own Super Mutants if any of them have gotten pregnant, providing definitive proof that you're telling the truth, before he's convinced. It's not "pass a speech check, he does a 180".

Yeah but the convincing happens in the span of one dialogue. Even when you come with hard solid data to someone, it's really difficult if not impossible to convince someone to go full 180 in such a short span of time. And even then, imo it would have been more "realistic" for the Master to be like "well, maybe we can find a way to make them pregnant or clone them" and come up with a bunch of ways to rationalize how actually super mutants are the superior species because blah blah we're not going to be subject to the randomness of sexual reproduction once we start the cloning vats. People's minds are slow to change if they do at all, and emotional appeals work a thousand times better, even on people who think themselves to be a "solid data" kind of person

I think the stereotype of nerds being socially inept shows in this kind of writing, it's very debate clubby, which is fun, but it's not really how it works

What Durkon did with the Durkula as an example, is a masterclass on persuasion.

[brian 333]

Let us assume A Company invests in the invention of Chemical X. They have spent a lot of time and money, but keep encountering setbacks which require more time and other resources to overcome.

Along comes Inventor who has patented a viable method of producing Chemical X. The method is sound, and would only require investment in the manufacturing process to produce Chemical X in large enough quantities to be profitable.

Board Member 1 wants to license Inventor's patent and begin production. Board Member 2 points out that all previous research effort and expense will have been wasted if the funding to complete the original research is not continued, even though the same investment for production will have to be allocated when that research is finally completed.

Should we secure licensing and begin production now, or continue our research and hope we achieve a viable result and are able to begin production before B Company secures the license on Inventor's process?

Abandoning the research before we know of Inventor's success may not be a good idea. We have invested and learned, and are confident we can overcome the setbacks. After Inventor offers his method, continuing our own research is fallacious, because we are spending more for the thing than we have to.

You don't go to the market and pay more for eggs than the grocier asks. Eggs may be worth more to you than to the grocer, but he's only asking for a pound per dozen. Paying anything more is wasting money.

Fallacy is when you use irrelevant data to support a more expensive option. I want to go to the theater tonight because I am wearing new shoes. I only eat bacon because my friend is allergic to feathers. I want to continue my research because I don't want what has already been spent to be wasted. I want to continue The Plan because I killed my brother and countless others for it, and achieving the same results any other way will prove I did not have murder in the first place.

[Dasick]

Abandoning the research before we know of Inventor's success may not be a good idea. We have invested and learned, and are confident we can overcome the setbacks. After Inventor offers his method, continuing our own research is fallacious, because we are spending more for the thing than we have to.

Not true. The Inventor will require more or less a lifetime licensing fee. If your company develops a non patented way to make chemical X, that's a cost your company will not have to pay. The only question is, what's the probability of your company developing that way in a way that doesn't cost more than the lifetime licensing fee.

Probability being the keyword. There are very, very few certainties out in the real world, and two people estimating the probability of something can provide extremely different estimates. Even then the probability itself is part of a larger decision making process.

Fallacy is when you use irrelevant data to support a more expensive option. I want to go to the theater tonight because I am wearing new shoes. I only eat bacon because my friend is allergic to feathers. I want to continue my research because I don't want what has already been spent to be wasted. I want to continue The Plan because I killed my brother and countless others for it, and achieving the same results any other way will prove I did not have murder in the first place.

Not necessarily the more expensive option. But there's a ton of reasons to pursue the more expensive option, because money isn't everything (kinda sorta).

It might be a good PR boost for Company A that they invented a new way to make Chemical X.

Board Member 2 might have relatives, or friends, or just random really promising individuals on the R&D department. Company A doesn't have other long term projects, so they would have to let them go, but BM2 might be thinking of the future, where investing in an R&D department will lead to it being better, being able to come up with new more cost efficient methods or opening up new markets.

There might be other factors. Board Member 2 doesn't necessarily understand why the decision to license Chemical X bothers him, but he might just have a hard time putting it into words.

This is relatively easy when we're talking about something as "simple" as just making money.

Greencloack has both the motivation of his own very squishy feelings and ambitions, as well as the nebulous task of improving the life of goblinkind everywhere. Maybe it would be better for goblins if his plan succeeds and then The Dark One would have more leverage. Thor isn't sure The Dark One could make it, but maybe he could, and that would guarantee that goblins in the new setting have a better start, and that they are included anyways (like how Monkey threw in ninjas into the medieval european fantasy setting). Maybe the Dark One won't make it, but the gods now know a purple quiddity is possible, and they would try to replicate the conditions for the purple quiddity arising in the first place, or analyzing those conditions and improving on it - say, they would make goblins medium and oppressed again, so that a god opposed to all gods would rise and be his own pantheon, but in a way that would take shorter, and make it more possible to negotiate with this god afterwards. Something as simple as secretly making starting goblin lands absolutely OP, but only if they apply some trick the gods built in and guarded until its time to hit the negotiation tables.

That's also on top of the uncertainty that the dwarf or the gods could be lying. Very few things in life can be said in absolute certainty. It's always probabilities and deep webs of possibilities. Someone could always say "you know what, Ive invested too much into this path already, Im not changing course", and be either too emotional to understand better, or simply using useful shorthand to refer to it all

This is why fallacies aren't (sic)

[brian 333]

That's rationalization based on irrelevant details.

The Plan is not 'destroy this world and hope for better next time.' That is Redcloak rationalizing away the consequences of failure.

The plan is, 'Blackmail the gods into changing the world.' Any issues unrelated to that is an example of why Redcloak is engaging in a fallacy.

And officers making sub-optimal decisions with company funds, such as to keep relatives on the payroll, is a criminal offense. Definitely fallacious.

[Dasick]

That's rationalization based on irrelevant details.

The Plan is not 'destroy this world and hope for better next time.' That is Redcloak rationalizing away the consequences of failure.

The plan is, 'Blackmail the gods into changing the world.' Any issues unrelated to that is an example of why Redcloak is engaging in a fallacy.

And officers making sub-optimal decisions with company funds, such as to keep relatives on the payroll, is a criminal offense. Definitely fallacious.

Plans change. Shifting goalposts don't apply cause it's not a formal debate. Even then, he doesn't think the gods will pull the plug on it. Actually Durkon telling him that they need the Dark One gives his plan more leverage. We as an audience know that Durkon is telling the truth, but Redcloak doesn't, so it might be some sort of a trick anyways from his perspective. Very few things in life are certain enough.

I'm overstating this case here, for the sake of the argument. I think what Rich is doing with the character and Oona's speech on two villages is very good. So it's a character flaw. Especially made more ironic because Redcloak is all about being rational and sceptical (he summons periodic table elementals ffs).

I don't see why a board member doing a criminal offence is "fallacious". If he can get away with it (and let's face it, statistically speaking they do) what's so irrational about engaging in criminal behaviour? I also mentioned non criminal ways in which just licensing the product can be suboptimal (lifetime licencing cost, and investing in an R&D department can lead to more profit down the line).


EDIT: whaddaya know, wouldnt be the first time wrong eye goes and does this
https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0451.html
more from him
https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0544.html

its an actual math thing. in poker, there's a certain point where you're "pot committed". That is, so much of your stack is in the pot, that mathematically speaking given the hand you have, the correct decision is to go all in, even if you'd prefer to play a smaller pot or think the opponent has the goods.

[brian 333]

Redcloak has the knowledge he needs to understand that The Plan cannot succeed. He does not need the information Durkon offers. He has failed in all four previous attempts to secure a gate, and seeing that Durkon is already at the gate location, and a member of the team responsible for three of those four failures, it is unreasonable to think he will successfully secure and hold a gate long enough to perform the ritual.

To use your poker analogy, if you put your last chips into a pot you know you are going to lose, you are throwing good money after bad. In poker there is a chance your opponent is bluffing or overconfident, but if you see his hand and know it is better than yours, there is no mathematical model that shows going all in to be a good strategy. There has to be at least a chance of winning for a longshot to be worth betting more than has already been spent on it.

He has known as far back as Gobbotopia, when he faced his brother's image in his mirror, that there is a better way to achieve the objectives of The Plan. He was trying to convince himself that he could still make The Plan work, even knowing that it wouldn't.

But it will all be worth it. You'll see.

[BaronOfHell]

I understand the poker analogy like this:

You have already invested heavily in a hand, and afterwards, but before the cards are shown, the table reveals the odds of winning is now much lower than making your investment wortwhile.

However you are in a situation where you can either back out, and have so few chips remaining that the odds of not winning at this table is very high, X.

Alternatively you can keep on investing in your current hand, knowing you're very likely to lose everything, but then you can at least show your cards and the odds of not losing this hand may still be lower than X, i.e. the odds of coming back with the little chips remaining.

There may also be a time factor, by losing fast you can buy yourself into another table and spend the time better than trying to recover from a very bad position you may spend hours on and be very likely to lose all the same.

[Ruck]

its an actual math thing. in poker, there's a certain point where you're "pot committed". That is, so much of your stack is in the pot, that mathematically speaking given the hand you have, the correct decision is to go all in, even if you'd prefer to play a smaller pot or think the opponent has the goods.

I understand the poker analogy like this:

You have already invested heavily in a hand, and afterwards, but before the cards are shown, the table reveals the odds of winning is now much lower than making your investment worthwhile.

However you are in a situation where you can either back out, and have so few chips remaining that the odds of not winning at this table is very high, X.

Alternatively you can keep on investing in your current hand, knowing you're very likely to lose everything, but then you can at least show your cards and the odds of not losing this hand may still be lower than X, i.e. the odds of coming back with the little chips remaining.

There may also be a time factor, by losing fast you can buy yourself into another table and spend the time better than trying to recover from a very bad position you may spend hours on and be very likely to lose all the same.

Ooh, I know this!

"Pot committed" generally refers to before the end of the hand, where you think you are behind but your odds of playing for the rest of your money vs. your odds of winning the hand are still favorable enough that you have to put the money in. (If, say, you think you're a 70/30 underdog to what your opponent has, but you're getting 3:1 on your remaining money and thus the breakeven point for calling it off is 25% equity, then you're pot committed there.)

BaronOfHell's time factor is relevant to tournaments, since in a cash game you can always add more money to the table between hands. You can't in a tournament, so it may be more profitable to take a shot on the current hand and re-enter if you bust, or if re-entry is not possible, play something else where your expectation is higher than staying in the tournament with very few chips would be.

[Dasick]

Redcloak has the knowledge he needs to understand that The Plan cannot succeed. He does not need the information Durkon offers. He has failed in all four previous attempts to secure a gate, and seeing that Durkon is already at the gate location, and a member of the team responsible for three of those four failures, it is unreasonable to think he will successfully secure and hold a gate long enough to perform the ritual.

To use your poker analogy, if you put your last chips into a pot you know you are going to lose, you are throwing good money after bad. In poker there is a chance your opponent is bluffing or overconfident, but if you see his hand and know it is better than yours, there is no mathematical model that shows going all in to be a good strategy. There has to be at least a chance of winning for a longshot to be worth betting more than has already been spent on it.

Popular poker variants are generally speaking designed in a way that, within the rules of the game, you can't see the out come of a hand until the end. It's what keeps people wasting so much money on it.

In IRL terms, no Redcloack actually doesn't know he's beat.

He also knows the good guys can't just destroy the gate this time.

He is also a cleric of his god. Which leaves quite a strong professional impact as you've seen in the godsmoot storyline when clerics chose to trust the judgement of their respective deities and support the vampires trying to rig the vote in favour of the outcome their gods chose. It's pretty clear that the Dark One approves of everything Redcloack is doing, including the murder of his brother and continuing to work with Xykon. Gods have a much better vantage point, and greater mental faculties. In the world presented, blind faith is a perfectly legitimate option.

You have already invested heavily in a hand, and afterwards, but before the cards are shown, the table reveals the odds of winning is now much lower than making your investment wortwhile.

Again, popular poker variants dont do this cause its how it keeps suckers sucked in.

You always have a chance to win, and given the rules of the game, you never know for sure.

The rules of life are such that you never know anything as being true.

BaronOfHell's time factor is relevant to tournaments, since in a cash game you can always add more money to the table between hands. You can't in a tournament, so it may be more profitable to take a shot on the current hand and re-enter if you bust, or if re-entry is not possible, play something else where your expectation is higher than staying in the tournament with very few chips would be.

There's also situations where if you play with 100 big blinds or 10 big blinds it changes how you play.

At 10 big blinds, you basically go all in with anything worth playing.

Poker tournaments also have deal making based on expected value given the chips held at the final table, if its a multi table thing. Generally speaking, making deals is not how professional poker players make millions because there's significant difference between 6th place money and 1st place money.

Greencloack may simply do some back of the napkin calculations here and say that you know what, this deal puts goblins ahead, but it still doesn't put them ahead enough, where given the quadratic nature of how generational inequality works, it could easily put goblins back where they are in a couple of centuries. It's important to remember that he made this decision after a reasonably brief discussion, while under time pressure where his tactical advantage was slipping.

[brian 333]

My argument was based on knowing what the other player holds, so modern betting rules do not matter. If he knows the cards his opponent holds beat his hand then tossing more money into the pot is throwing money away. He knows he cannot win, but cannot admit he is about to lose. He is willing to flip the table and screw everybody, even those he claims to be fighting for.

I am emphatically not suggesting he should believe Durkon. I'm not suggesting he should take The Deal. I'm suggesting he should listen to Right-Eye.

[Dasick]

But that's my point. In poker, you never really "know" what the other player holds. You can suspect, you can deduce it to almost certainty, but the cards are flipped over at showdown.

Likewise, in real life, you never really know something for certain.

Whether a cleric in a world like OOTS should ever do anything other than do what their deity tells them to do is an interesting question.

[BaronOfHell]

Again, popular poker variants dont do this cause its how it keeps suckers sucked in.

You always have a chance to win, and given the rules of the game, you never know for sure.

The rules of life are such that you never know anything as being true.

But that was what I described?
A persons confidence in his hands may change as more cards are revealed on the table, but the expected loss may still be higher if he folds, even though had he known what he knows now, the best play would have been to fold before committing, but at the time he committed he had good reason to be confident in his hand.

Also I'm pretty confident you do not always have a chance of winning as more and more cards are shown on the table, like when the best hand you can make includes none of the cards on your person, but I think that is beside the point.

[Dasick]

But that was what I described?

PRetty much yeah, it was more clarifying

Also I'm pretty confident you do not always have a chance of winning as more and more cards are shown on the table, like when the best hand you can make includes none of the cards on your person, but I think that is beside the point.

As someone who enjoys poker quite a bit, it's extremely frustrating how often someone has a non zero chance to make the better hand when you go all in before all the cards are drawn.


Just going over this comic, and I have to say that it pretty much answers everything in this thread

https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1262.html

Also note what Oona says in panel 9.

I like to be a devil's advocate a lot, but I think this page and Oona sum up what I think about Redcloack

[Seward]

My argument was based on knowing what the other player holds, so modern betting rules do not matter. If he knows the cards his opponent holds beat his hand then tossing more money into the pot is throwing money away.

Well, not entirely. There is a betting strategy that starts with "driving out the competition". As in "I have a good hand but only if 2 people are drawing cards, not if 7 people are drawing cards". This tends to be more big early raises than going all in, but you can engage in this strategy with all-in and it's effective because you won't have to pay another dime to see the rest of the cards in your hand but everyone else (barring a single person staying in, which as noted is supposed to be good odds for you if you are using this strategy) is competing with each other and might raise and make it more expensive for them to draw cards.

It's an edge condition, but it is a useful approach in some games. I find it comes up more often in beer-poker with dealers choice and weird poker variants where the other players have a harder time gauging what a good hand actually is between games than in something like a poker tournament with only one game played and everybody actually skilled and not under influence of excessive alcohol or just a desire to "keep it interesting" because stakes are low and taking chances is fun.

[brian 333]

Well, not entirely. There is a betting strategy that starts with "driving out the competition". As in "I have a good hand but only if 2 people are drawing cards, not if 7 people are drawing cards". This tends to be more big early raises than going all in, but you can engage in this strategy with all-in and it's effective because you won't have to pay another dime to see the rest of the cards in your hand but everyone else (barring a single person staying in, which as noted is supposed to be good odds for you if you are using this strategy) is competing with each other and might raise and make it more expensive for them to draw cards.

It's an edge condition, but it is a useful approach in some games. I find it comes up more often in beer-poker with dealers choice and weird poker variants where the other players have a harder time gauging what a good hand actually is between games than in something like a poker tournament with only one game played and everybody actually skilled and not under influence of excessive alcohol or just a desire to "keep it interesting" because stakes are low and taking chances is fun.

Again, irrelevant.

If the outcome is known and you bet into a hand you are going to lose, you are going to lose anyway, so the additional bet is wasted in any case. There is no ambiguity, maybe, might strategy in play here.

Redcloak knows his strategy is a losing strategy. He's not playing poker. He's hitting his foot with a hammer for the fifth time, and saying, "This time it will stop my tooth from hurting."

All of the keys to the puzzle are in his possession. The only reason he has not used them is because he has an obsession with making sure everyone he murdered, helped murder, stood by and did nothing as they were murdered, or created the tools and gave them to people who intended to use them for murder, are assuaged by the outcome of The Plan.

The fact that he cannot even articulate what that preferred outcome looks like is a major clue. Another is how willing he is to accept the destruction of the world for a vague hope that somehow it will all be better even though he admits that he has no clue how that will be possible. The final clue is when he looks in the mirror and tells Right-Eye, "It will all be worth it. You'll see."

Redcloak is in the position of a Risk player who rolls out all of his possible attacks then flips the board. "If I don't win, nobody wins."

That's not a poker strategy. Not even close.

[BaronOfHell]

The fact that he cannot even articulate what that preferred outcome looks like is a major clue. Another is how willing he is to accept the destruction of the world for a vague hope that somehow it will all be better even though he admits that he has no clue how that will be possible.

It is not my impression that RC has any doubts on how things will work out given either outcome of the gate being conquered or the gate being destroyed.

I do not know if the fail safe in The Plan of the Dark One getting increased influence, if the world is destroyed, is an actual part of the plan or just something RC decided at some point? I always thought it was a genuine part of the plan.

As far as I know, the only failure RC considers, is if the good guys manages to keep him away from the final gate, and then the worst case scenario is probably the cloak gets destroyed before it is handed to someone else.