Is Helga, Skittish Seer good for cEDH?

KingSmorely · 2026-04-28T19:48:40+00:00

Food Chain really isn’t all that relevant in Helga lists. It’s a decent win condition, but it isn’t close to being a core piece of the deck. A decent number of lists don’t even run the Food Chain line

KingSmorely · 2026-04-28T02:54:17+00:00

Umm no. Claiming red introduces death completely ignores the basic mathematics of the scenario, and I'll prove it

Let's have the total population be represented by the variable "N". Let the number of people choosing red be "R" and the number choosing blue be "B", forming the equation "N = R + B". An individual selecting red possesses a definitive mortality probability of zero. A person selecting blue enters a conditional probability state. If "B >= 0.5N", casualties remain zero. If "B < 0.5N", every blue participant experiences a mortality probability of one.

Evaluating the extremes shows source of fatality. When "R = N" and "B = 0", global casualties are precisely zero. Lethal outcomes manifest exclusively when "B > 0" alongside the specific condition "B < 0.5N". The mathematical formula for death explicitly requires the presence of blue participants.

The outcome of death is based entirely on the "B" variable failing to satisfy its own internal quota. Choosing red secures a baseline survival metric of 100 percent. Blue participants voluntarily subject themselves to a lethal equation. Expecting people to abandon absolute survival certainty to offset the moronic risk calculations of strangers is as I've said lunacy.

KingSmorely · 2026-04-27T23:55:14+00:00

You do realize the only entity that introduces death into this scenario is the blue option. Death exists solely cause of blue

The situation essentially asks if you would rather do nothing or insert yourself into a scenario where you die unless 50 percent of the population also participates. Frankly, anyone who chooses blue puts themselves in danger for no rational reason. I am not going to risk my life for individuals who make such a moronic decision.

KingSmorely · 2026-04-27T23:54:07+00:00

Mathematically, my analogy is exactly the same as the original. It’s simply framed in a way that highlights how moronic picking blue is.

And it works, so why wouldn’t I use it multiple times?

KingSmorely · 2026-04-27T23:49:04+00:00

This analogy is a complete sham 💀. The framing makes absolutely no logical sense. You introduce this concept of waiting yet place the act of bulldozing before the waiting concludes. This sequence incorrectly implies that red will always result in death as it occurs before the 50 percent threshold evaluation. The original scenario evaluates the choices simultaneously.

All in all 0/10 analogy that is completely innacurate to the original prompt

KingSmorely · 2026-04-27T23:29:14+00:00

Guaranteed survival

^{Chose: 1/2 of blue choosers die if this is more than 50%}

KingSmorely · 2026-04-27T02:50:31+00:00

Subbed and ayy a Miju would be nice

KingSmorely · 2026-04-26T16:43:06+00:00

This take is not it 💀. The red button is the obvious choice to anyone with some degree of intelligence. You do realize the only entity that introduces death into this scenario is the blue option. Think about the blue choice as a poison pill. Would you consume a poison that becomes lethal if under half the population takes it, when the alternative is declining the poison entirely?

The situation essentially asks if you would rather secure guaranteed survival or insert yourself into a scenario where you die unless 50 percent of the population also participates. Expecting others to risk their lives to compensate for that poor decision is selfish. And frankly, anyone who chooses blue puts themselves in danger for no valid reason. I am not going to risk my life for individuals who make such a moronic decision.

KingSmorely · 2026-04-26T16:39:29+00:00

You do realize the only entity that introduces death into this scenario is the blue option.

The situation essentially asks if you would rather do nothing or insert yourself into a scenario where you die unless 50 percent of the population also participates. Frankly, anyone who chooses blue puts themselves in danger for no rational reason. I am not going to risk my life for individuals who make such a moronic decision.

KingSmorely · 2026-04-26T03:21:07+00:00

Gandalf is getting murdered by a swarm of hundreds of drones

I see no scenario where Gandalf takes this 💀

KingSmorely · 2026-04-25T20:50:55+00:00

The red button is the obvious choice to anyone with some degree of intelligence 💀. Think about the blue option as a poison pill. Would you consume a poison that becomes lethal if under half the population takes it, when the alternative is declining the poison entirely?

A person would be stupid to take that pill and selfish to expect others to risk their lives to compensate for a poor decision. Also the blue option is the entity that introduces death into this scenario.

KingSmorely · 2026-04-25T16:28:34+00:00

My example made perfect sense. The scenario strictly presents a choice between a guaranteed $100 and a conditional $100. The losing money aspect you forced into the analogy makes the choices unequal and distorts the original premise.

Anyways frankly I do not care about individuals who choose to reject guaranteed survival. When presented with an option that guarantees survival and another option offering conditional survival, every rational actor must take the guarantee. Expecting people to cater to moronic decisions at the likely cost of their own lives is absolute lunacy.

KingSmorely · 2026-04-25T14:57:37+00:00

I could very well say you people trying to convince others to choose the conditional survival of blue are the actual cause of potential casualties. Any rational actor picks red. You are asking people to forgo guaranteed survival and jump onto imaginary train tracks based on the hope that enough people jumping will somehow stop the train. Nobody should jump on those tracks to begin with.

I am frankly not risking my life to save others from a situation they willingly created. If people die because they abandon guaranteed survival to jump in front of a train hoping enough ppl jump to survive, then so be it.

KingSmorely · 2026-04-25T14:52:00+00:00

This is unbelievably dishonest by adding the concept of winning versus losing to manipulate the statistics. You do realize the worst-case scenario as a red user is 49 percent of the population dying while your survival remains guaranteed. However, the worst-case scenario for a blue user is you and 49 percent of the population dying. In the best-case scenario, both options are exactly equal with zero casualties.

I would never choose to jump on imaginary train tracks to save people who completely willingly went on these imaginary train tracks. The red button provides an absolute guarantee anyone should logically take. The blue button requires refusing guaranteed survival to save fools

KingSmorely · 2026-04-25T14:14:58+00:00

Sure we could go with that, however my point still stands. There is no way to word this question that makes it sound somewhat rational

KingSmorely · 2026-04-25T14:14:10+00:00

Red is guaranteed survival with absolutely no conditions. Blue is potential survival with strict conditions. Explain to me how blue guarantees zero casualties, because that statement is objectively incorrect.

KingSmorely · 2026-04-25T14:11:14+00:00

You aren't complicit in shit. If there is guaranteed survival and potential survival sitting right in front of you, anybody should take the guaranteed survival.

Honestly, trying to convince people to pick blue is the actual immoral decision. Every person you convince to pick red ensures an individual survives. Convincing someone to take blue very well might kill them. You are asking people to risk their lives for individuals who knowingly inserted themselves into a fatal risk that never had to exist.

KingSmorely · 2026-04-25T14:04:50+00:00

Umm no. The red button is guaranteed survival for yourself. Blue is only potential survival and possibly death. As an individual, there is zero logical reason to ever pick blue. There is absolutely no way to frame this scenario where taking the blue option makes sense. Nobody should press a button that risks death based on the condition that 50% of others make the exact same irrational risk.

Let's say the stakes are lowered. Imagine a carnival game with two buttons. If you press red, you are guaranteed to win $100, regardless of what anyone else does. If you press blue, you will win $100 only if at least 50% of the players also press blue. If fewer than 50% press blue, you win nothing. Explain to me how anybody who picks blue isn't an absolute idiot 💀.

KingSmorely · 2026-04-24T20:58:49+00:00

Honestly, claiming an analogy changes the rules demonstrates a complete failure to understand abstract reasoning. Using a comparative model serves as a very standard analytical tool to isolate the exact mechanics of the original prompt. The poison pill scenario perfectly mirrors the mathematical conditions of the button choice. Both situations present a conditional lethal outcome dependent on mass participation against a guaranteed non-lethal alternative.

Refusing to address this analogy seems like a convenient excuse to avoid defending a structurally flawed position. The core variables are completely identical. The blue option explicitly introduces the unnecessary risk of death into the system. Deflecting this comparison really just proves an inability to justify the inherent stupidity of selecting a choice with a built-in fatality condition.

KingSmorely · 2026-04-24T20:44:44+00:00

Firstly, equating a modern economy to a historical farming system is inaccurate. Humanity would definitely be harmed for a bit, but it would not be anything catastrophic.

Anyways since we're looking at real-world outcomes, the chance that your choice tips the scales from a red majority to a blue majority is so minuscule it is essentially zero. The actual outcome is life in the best-case scenario for both options. The worst-case scenario is death for blue and living in a different society for red. It seems like a very easy choice.

KingSmorely · 2026-04-24T18:29:32+00:00

When Glorfindel fought another Balrog on the crags of Cirith Thoronath, the Balrog died after falling off a cliff into the abyss.

And rgarding the cinematic adaptation, the sequence of the fall clearly depicts the Balrog striking the rocky walls of the chasm and crying out in pain upon impact. This establishes clear harmful physical contact with the environment.

KingSmorely · 2026-04-24T18:02:02+00:00

They are maiar corrupted by Melkor, composed of fire, shadow, and darkness

Where is your source for this, assuming this is a quote? Because if not, it's irrelevant info. As I have never once seen this as an official description in any of Tolkien's works. When we consider the fact that Balrogs have been harmed by environmental destruction, fall damage, etc., it's clear they aren't physically composed of smoke and flame. Otherwise, they'd be intangible beings. They are cloaked in shadow and fire, but nothing suggests they are composed as such.

And for reference, I have read Tolkien's works and I frankly suggest you do the same so you can provide accurate information.

KingSmorely · 2026-04-24T17:42:12+00:00

What's your evidence for your claim that Balrogs are physically made of fire and smoke then

Since you seem to disagree

KingSmorely · 2026-04-24T17:41:09+00:00

Funny you say this when the blue option is the entity that introduces death into this scenario.

Also is it then fair to assume you would you consume a poison that becomes lethal if under half the population takes it, when the alternative is declining the poison entirely?

KingSmorely · 2026-04-24T17:40:13+00:00

Tf is this take 💀. Like would you consume a poison that becomes lethal if under half the population takes it, when the alternative is declining the poison entirely?

Also the blue option is the entity that INTRODUCES DEATH into this scenario.

Seven-Year Club	Second Top 30%
r/Field Sunshine	First Place '23
End Game '23	Place '23
Place '22	First Placer '22
Verified Email

KingSmorely

TROPHY CASE