To clarify, I rephrased my wording, but it seems you were already preparing a response, as you quoted sentences that I've since revised.
"To me the incentive is just the act itself. Killing the bird, should have had more repercussions, because you're openly doing it while Nettie is pretty much standing right next to you in most circumstances."
I both disagree and agree. The act itself being an incentive doesn't really work, when you consider the whole package. You just kill to kill, which is fitting for the Dark Urge. However, there are two problems. You don't get anything for it and nobody really cares, Nettie especially. It can also run into this trope:
https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ForTheEvulz .Basically, you are doing evil stuff just for the sake of it, without any long term planning. Even Bhaal didn't do that, as there were often long terms plans set in motion. Not a mindless beast that just killed everyone. You can accomplish the very same thing with any character, by just killing everyone you come across. There is a difference between smart evil and stupid evil.
That's not quite what I intended, which would have been clearer had you read my entire response before addressing each separate sentence. However, as I continued reading your reply, it seems that you might not be fully engaged in comprehensive reading.
"I'd argue, that if you don't like playing as a potential evil character, you shouldn't be choosing this character. I myself, by default, don't like playing as the bad guy. What I do like and what I wanted this game to do, is forcing you to do evil, when you'd normally not choose to do so. This is especially interesting when combined with a Paladin, who's one bad roll away from being an Oathbreaker. Yet, nothing of the scripted evil acts, break my oath and the dialogue options, which I think should, can simply be ignored, which I think are missed opportunities."
There is difference between playing evil character that actually makes sense and doing evil stuff for it's own sake. Because at that point, you are playing just Murderhobo, which you could do before. However, you aren't locked into being evil. Dark Urge is not evil path, it's different path. In previous games it was just the same. You could choose to be evil, but you didn't have to. To me it seems like you want to play an evil character, who is evil from the very beginning. And you can already do that with any of the characters. You basically want to change the Dark Urge into the Darkest Urge, where you kill, have got no control over yourself and be the worst thing that has ever been in Faerun. That seems something like a mod or another origin character.
I clearly mentioned my preference for not playing as the antagonist. However, there seems to be a misunderstanding as you assume I intend to portray an evil character. If my words aren't being fully considered—this is the second instance in this reply where it appears my point isn't getting through—then I'm a bit puzzled about the purpose of this exchange.
"I'm not really in it for "rewards", but rather just being potentially forced (via failed ability checks) down a darker path, I wouldn't normally choose myself is more than rewarding enough for me."
As I said before, the Darkest Urge, like the hardest difficulty of Dark Souls/Darkest Dungeon/Any game that allows that. And I don't understand your point here. As a Dark Urge you can choose to be evil, you can kill everyone you meet, you can do anything you want. You can do that with any character, really. But you are not happy, because the game doesn't force you to roll a saving throw to resist your urges at every point? It sounds dumb as hell and connects with this next comment:
The only thing that seems to be causing confusion here is the repeated misinterpretation of my text. I'm quite surprised that this has happened three times in a row. Initially, I questioned whether it might have been my fault, but it's becoming evident that the issue lies on your end.
"I honestly fail to see why that would get annoying very soon, as you don't have that many Dark Urge dialogue options to begin with, plus there are many more dialogue options that require you to roll an ability check for Persuasion, Deception or Intimidation, which occurs way more frequent than Dark Urge dialogue options. And forcing those ability checks before anything else would simply better convey the Urge part of the character you're playing. I'd argue if you don't like Urges forced upon you, you shouldn't be playing a character who's name implies it has those urges."
You are missing the forest for the trees. You don't want Dark Urge, you want the Darkest Urge. A Dark Urge++. Because, as I have written before you can choose to be evil or not. I agree that Dark Urges should be more frequent, definitely. As it is, there is a single bloody cutscene, where you resist in whole acts 1 and 2 combined. And narratively speaking, your character thinks of doing horrible shit to others all the time. And at this point, I have to ask, have you even watched the Dark Urge opening cutscene, you can watch during character creation?
You're continuing to elaborate on various points, but let's not lose sight of the main argument I initially presented and stand by. An "urge" inherently implies a strong compulsion to act, as it wouldn't be an urge otherwise. Therefore, it seems quite reasonable to introduce a saving throw mechanic when faced with dialogue options related to the Dark Urge. This concept is akin to existing mechanics, like the Abyss Beckoner's gloves, which compel summoned creatures to make Wisdom Saving Throws; failure results in madness, causing them to attack the nearest target. Suggesting that the Dark Urge triggers an automatic ability saving throw when a relevant dialogue option arises seems quite fair. However, it appears that some individuals might misinterpret this as advocating for a chaotic and malevolent character, instead of appreciating the nuanced motivations driving this choice.
And as someone who played Dnd 5e a lot, let me tell why your having a saving throw when talking to ANYONE is as dumb as it is.
I don't really mind your experience with D&D 5e, but I find your argument to be somewhat flawed, much like your statements.
Natural 1 exists, which is auto fail, no matter your bonus. So, you rely on RNG/save scumming to not commit a Dark Urge or reroll like crazy.
Making it a part of every conversation would get really annoying.
Firstly, consider renaming yourself to "Annoying Player" – it appears to be a more fitting choice. Secondly, it's worth noting that the Dark Urge dialogue options aren't present in all conversations. Are we both playing the same game, or are you simply raising illogical points to underline your tendency toward being bothersome? My inclination is to believe the latter. This implies that the annoyance factor is unlikely to increase significantly, but I suspect you might be the type of person who manages to be irked by just about everything, even rolling a natural 20 on that.
I've responded out of courtesy, although I won't anticipate reading your reply as I've set your profile to ignore. Your argumentation appears incredibly narrow-minded, lacking any understanding of my initial point. It leaves me questioning why I'm even extending this courtesy. Best of luck in dealing with your personal challenges; I imagine you'll require it.
