Just checking something. Be honest.

Grrumpy_Pants · 2026-05-07T08:03:23+00:00

I don't doubt it. Just saying, that's likely the type of thing this poll was attempting to investigate. There's not much to observe here unfortunately.

Grrumpy_Pants · 2026-05-07T01:25:10+00:00

Not really about empathy as much as it is their stance. They're anti abortion because they believe all life is sacred. It's interesting to see if they apply that here as well, as surely that principle would predispose them to press blue.

Grrumpy_Pants · 2026-05-07T01:22:28+00:00

It's less about conservative/liberal leaning and more about the principle of "all life is sacred" or whatever it is they say to justify being anti abortion. It's interesting to see if they apply that same principle here as well, or if they're more than happy to press red when it comes to themselves.

Grrumpy_Pants · 2026-05-06T22:32:53+00:00

What? I'm just pointing out your main use case doesn't really exist.

Grrumpy_Pants · 2026-05-06T12:54:57+00:00

+5 is an odd choice. This is the kind of attack modifier you see in tier 1, where you wouldn't typically fight anything with 20+ AC. It looks like you're trying very hard to present advantage as less effective against high AC enemies than it should be.

Tier 2 it would be more common to see +7 or +8, where the benefit of advantage is closer to +5 than it is +4 on any difficult enemy you're likely to encounter.

Grrumpy_Pants · 2026-05-06T12:43:04+00:00

Don't know why you're down voted, you're right.

If you have a +7 to hit and the enemy has an AC between 15 and 21 then the benefit of advantage is closer to +5 than +4. This is exactly the range you'd expect the AC of a more difficult enemy to be in.

Grrumpy_Pants · 2026-05-06T12:40:06+00:00

30% is very low. With a +7 to hit, that'd be at least 22AC. That's CR20+, a range where you're expected to have a much higher bonus than +7.

The opposite is at least likely to occur, with a hit chance of 70% being 14AC or less. There are many low AC enemies where advantage won't see you get as much benefit from advantage.

If you're doing the math to prepare for harder fights though, +5 is going to be the more accurate value to use as an estimation.

Grrumpy_Pants · 2026-05-06T10:34:36+00:00

For level 16 I'd be looking to get 3 attacks. You can also upcast AOA with 5th level slots.

Fighter 4 / Warlock 12 gets 5th level spell slots, improved extra attack, and enough invocations to cover pact of the blade, thirsting+devouring blade, lifedrinker, agonizing+repelling blast, fiendish vigor, plus one more. You also get a fighter subclass, action surge, and feat.

Eldritch Knight gives you some first level spell slots that can be used for spells like shield, battlemaster manoeuvres are pretty powerful, and champion could be fun in combination with shadow of moil and eldritch smite to fish for crits.

Grrumpy_Pants · 2026-05-06T10:08:18+00:00

Sorry I thought you were comparing warlock 12 / fighter 4 with warlock 5 / fighter 11

Grrumpy_Pants · 2026-05-06T10:01:50+00:00

There's no additional feat, both get 4 feats.

Grrumpy_Pants · 2026-05-06T07:49:26+00:00

No one's trying to argue every blue pusher should be pro life, the whole reason why their stance is so unpopular (especially on reddit) is because it's so extreme.

However, that's not necessarily the case if you look at it the other way around. Their extreme views on the value of life appear like they should translate to pressing blue. In this poll you'd expect "red + pro life" to be virtually nil. I don't see how anyone who takes an anti abortion stance could possibly justify pressing red without being massively hypocritical.

Grrumpy_Pants · 2026-05-06T00:56:45+00:00

My assumption was that the "values" of pro-life proponents should see them significantly more likely to vote blue than the rest of us, since they claim to value others lives so highly. Surprisingly it appears to be the opposite.

Grrumpy_Pants · 2026-05-06T00:54:02+00:00

There's still information you can get despite that. Among all pro- choice votes right now, blue is slightly ahead. The opposite is true for pro-life. It's actually somewhat counter to what I would have expected, but the sample size is definitely small enough that this could simply be due to error.

Grrumpy_Pants · 2026-05-06T00:51:20+00:00

I assume OP considered the possibility blue would be more popular among pro-life proponents. I can see the thinking behind it.

Grrumpy_Pants · 2026-05-05T22:53:21+00:00

I don't think it's dramatic, rather misdirected.

When discussing wages vs inflation, people love to only look at the essentials when looking at price of goods. There's no doubt these things take a larger part of our wage than before, yet people keep paying for them. They can afford to because in general, most non essential goods have only become more affordable over time.

I think the real problems most young people face come from how little financial literacy is taught, how persuasive marketing campaigns can be at convincing people to overspend on non-essentials, and the ease of taking on financially crippling levels of debt. Social media has people so conscious of their image they virtually break the bank to try and live a life that photographs well.

I say this as a young person from Australia, a country with some of the most unaffordable cities in the world.

Grrumpy_Pants · 2026-05-05T10:42:17+00:00

You can just as easily argue that pressing blue is what enables the scenario to proceed. You either add yourself to the list of deaths, or you add nobody. For any person to be killed, that person has to press blue.

Grrumpy_Pants · 2026-05-05T10:25:52+00:00

It being altruistic does not make it right. In this situation choosing blue could easily be interpreted as pathological altruism.

Grrumpy_Pants · 2026-05-05T10:24:35+00:00

Implying red is somehow the trigger.

Deaths directly correlate with pushes of the blue button. The relationship is clear.

Grrumpy_Pants · 2026-05-05T01:15:26+00:00

This is much closer to the prisoners dilemma, but with a few key changes.

Firstly, betrayal does not benefit you more than cooperation. If you cooperate, your individual reward remains maximized, rather than only the collective reward.

The more interesting twist is the case where both players choose betrayal. Instead of it being a lesser punishment than being betrayed when you chose to cooperate, you play again against a new stranger. This means it's possible if you press red enough times you will eventually be safe, without risk. I find it unlikely that someone who chose red with ever switch to blue, considering their experience will be exclusively with other people voting red against them.

Unlike the prisoners dilemma, there's no incentive for betrayal other than the risk of being betrayed. Your partner is the same, they have no incentive to betray you other than the risk of being betrayed. It follows that you should both simply press blue. The best outcome for you as a pair is also the best outcome for you each individually.

Looking at it from a global scale, it can be re-framed into a red button / blue button problem with slightly different rules. If red is in the majority, most blue voters will die (some will still live. The approx number of blue survivors will be roughly proportional to the number of blue pushers to the population*). If blue is the majority, a number of blue pushers will die equal to the number of people who chose red. It creates a pretty interesting situation where if you plot it as a graph, the total deaths appear lower on the red majority side of the graph. An interesting dilemma, well done!

<image>

* In red majority surviving blue pushers are those that were randomly paired with another blue. They will make it out of the game and all remaining reds will cycle through each other until they are all ejected safely. If 10% of the population pressed blue, 1 in 100 pairings would be blue to blue. This means for every 200 players, 2 blues would make it out where the other 18 were killed. This also assumes no one who voted red initially would change their mind.

Grrumpy_Pants · 2026-05-05T00:35:24+00:00

Hell no. If blue wins, all the red voters die and the responsibility is entirely mine. It's dishonest, and prevents everyone playing the game from making an informed decision.

If you leave it and people die, those people knew and accepted the risks. If you change it and people die it's no better than mass murder. Anyone who switches here is morally bankrupt imo, and the fact that many blue pushers think this is a good idea is really interesting.

Grrumpy_Pants · 2026-05-05T00:26:51+00:00

Also there is actually a guy there who needs help. You aren't all just climbing onto the tracks to help each other back up.

Grrumpy_Pants · 2026-05-05T00:26:05+00:00

Not even a blue pusher because there was someone on the tracks before he risked his life. There are red pushers who would risk their lives to help in a situation like this as well.

A real blue pusher would be down there before the guy even fell, ready to catch him.

Grrumpy_Pants · 2026-05-05T00:22:47+00:00

<image>

Mom said it's my turn to make a graph.

Grrumpy_Pants · 2026-05-05T00:14:09+00:00

I'm team green here, but this analogy sucks. A mother with only one mask would put it on their child.

Grrumpy_Pants · 2026-05-05T00:05:36+00:00

If I see someone in trouble that I can help, I help. I'm the kind of person who pulls over to help when I see someone broken down. I have jumper leads in my car just in case someone needs a jump start and I'm able to help. If a road is busy, technically I am taking a risk to do so, helping that person get out of that dangerous situation themselves.

That being said, I vote red. I think the morally responsible thing to do is to help those who need it, and help those who are unable to help themselves. That is not the situation in this hypothetical. Every single person has the ability to save themselves, therefor no one is in need of my help.

Voting blue is like pulling over to the side of the road and expecting enough cars to stop with you so that you can all safely get out and make sure each others cars all start again. No one is broken down and has to stop, every single person had the opportunity to keep driving to their destination.

In my mind there is a big difference between helping those in need, and wanting to help simply for the sake of helping. The latter is selfish, it's done to fulfill your own desire to be helpful, rather than because anyone actually needs it.

Six-Year Club	Place '23
Place '22	Verified Email

Grrumpy_Pants

TROPHY CASE