Formal models in social epistemology explore why rational agents might polarize. While paradigmatic models focus on binary topics, e.g., ”Is H true or false?”, many real-world issues involve multi-option topics: ”Which of n > 2 options is true/best?” This paper introduces a model of rational deliberation on multi-option topics to address the following question: As a group discusses more options, should we expect their beliefs to polarize more or less? We find a dual effect: as the number of options increases, agents are more likely to disagree on which option is most likely correct. This makes it harder to reach consensus on a single position. At the same time, their beliefs—and thus their disagreements—become less extreme. Hence, while agents are more likely to disagree, these disagreements are less intense. Since each trend aligns with a familiar concept of polarization, more options can increase or decrease polarization, depending on one’s measurement.