Is the sunk cost fallacy always a fallacy?

[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.

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.

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.