When considering the name "the Dark Urge," my initial thought was of someone grappling with the choice of succumbing to or resisting the temptation to do wrong. While this concept could have potential depth, it appears that players currently have too much control over resisting the urge.
Opting to yield to the Urge should remain an available choice without requiring ability checks. However, choosing to resist the Urge should ideally be the primary action players face when encountering the Dark Urge dialogue options. This change would more accurately convey the internal struggle with these urges.
Upon initiating conversations, when the list of options includes traditional choices, racial options, and new dark urge-related options, the game should automatically mandate a Dark Urge check for these specific options. Failing this ability check would result in immediate succumbing to the urge as indicated by the dialogue choice.
This approach might not suit everyone, especially those who dislike this level of vulnerability tied to a character named "the Dark Urge," but let's face it, you shouldn't be playing this character if that's the case. Conversely, if a player successfully resists through the ability check but later decides they actually wanted to give in, an option free from ability checks to yield to the urge, could remain available amidst the other dialogue options.
This, in my view, presents the most genuine and engaging means of representing a character grappling with dark impulses.
I'm playing Dark Urge and I'm at the beginning of Act 2, but for me, as a veteran of the first two games, it's clear how Dark Urge is a Bhaalspawn or some sort of Bhaal's avatar.
In the old games, Gorion's Ward didn't have these urges to resist. They could simply decide what to do.
Everything was credibly contextualized because even if you were a good character, you still ended up leaving behind a huge pile of corpses.
This justified that, even if driven by good intentions, your heritage remained that of the God of Murder's child.
Addressing your comment: In my view, even without skill checks to resist these dark impulses, the mere fact that you'll reap many victims is a good justification for your character's background.
I'm playing Dark Urge and I'm at the beginning of Act 2, but for me, as a veteran of the first two games, it's clear how Dark Urge is a Bhaalspawn or some sort of Bhaal's avatar.
In the old games, Gorion's Ward didn't have these urges to resist. They could simply decide what to do.
Everything was credibly contextualized because even if you were a good character, you still ended up leaving behind a huge pile of corpses.
This justified that, even if driven by good intentions, your heritage remained that of the God of Murder's child.
Addressing your comment: In my view, even without skill checks to resist these dark impulses, the mere fact that you'll reap many victims is a good justification for your character's background.
First of all, thank you for your reply and thoughts.
Adapted from a post on this forum in response to the initial part of your message: Regarding Tav the Dark Urge - Many individuals were both surprised and enthusiastic about the inclusion of The Dark Urge origin as the Bhaalspawn/Evil alternative, which was absent during the Early Access phase. It has been revealed that Tav was initially the Dark Urge, and they were originally intended to be a Bhaalspawn, with the separation of these aspects potentially leading to the narrative divergence between the Dead Three storyline and the Mindflayer plot.
Regarding the rest of your reply: I'm currently in Act 1 and have observed the Urge primarily leading to the ritual sacrifice of the bard. Apart from this instance, the Urge seems to lack genuine urges—strong desires or impulses. Based on what I've experienced so far, I'm not convinced that the concept of Urges is accurately portrayed when players can simply opt to disregard them. In my understanding, an Urge should be compelling. It should overwhelm you, much like what happened during the ritual sacrifice, of which you seem to have very little memory.
As someone who played Dark Urge up to chapter 3, but didn’t finish it, here are my thoughts. Spoiler warning!!!:
-Establishing your character as having issues in ACT 1 is a good thing, as you do something horrible without any skill check or saving throw. -Being able to fall into temptation is good and all, but it runs into a problem of hindering you without offering any incentive. You can commit some brutal acts 1 in ACT 1, like biting off a goblin's toe, tearing birds wings off, etc.
However, this falls into a problem of the whole game. Being Evil is simply worse and not worth it. You don't get extra stuff, extra content, alternate quests, etc. The urge only gives you stuff, if you commit very specific acts. To make matters worse, you often Miss out on approval and are better off doing skill checks.
One way to fix this is by having something like a tadpole mechanic, we never got in the first place. The more you commit to urge, the better the rewards, but at a price. Companion disapproval is one way to do that (all, but maybe Minthara and Laezel should lose approval).
-There is a very good cutscene in ACT 2 if you resist the urge and I loved every part of it. But, it's just one cutscene. And with ACT 3 being as unfinished as it is, I don’t feel like going through the rest of it, just to get a chance to see something.
-Adding a saving throw to every conversations, where you resist your Dark Urge would get annoying very soon.
So, basically evil should be tempting, but it is not, you just play as a murderhobo and Miss out on stuff for a lacklustre rewards.
Also the reward for commiting to the Urge is Terrible!
The Slayer Form
is just pure garbage!
It has got no resistances, no damage immunities no condition immunities and mediocore damage against targets that can’t bleed. It also suffers from similar issues as a Wildshape does.
I wrote a whole post about it, but cant find it as of right now.
First of all, you as well thanks for the reply and thoughts.
Originally Posted by Annoyed Player
As someone who played Dark Urge up to chapter 3, but didn’t finish it, here are my thoughts. Spoiler warning!!!:
-Establishing your character as having issues in ACT 1 is a good thing, as you do something horrible without any skill check or saving throw. -Being able to fall into temptation is good and all, but it runs into a problem of hindering you without offering any incentive. You can commit some brutal acts 1 in ACT 1, like biting off a goblin's toe, tearing birds wings off, etc.
In my perspective, the motivation lies in the action itself. Taking the bird's life should carry more consequences, especially considering you're doing it right next to Nettie in most cases. The concept of the Dark Urge comes across as just a regular character with some extra dialogue choices that can be disregarded quite easily.
Originally Posted by Annoyed Player
However, this falls into a problem of the whole game. Being Evil is simply worse and not worth it. You don't get extra stuff, extra content, alternate quests, etc. The urge only gives you stuff, if you commit very specific acts. To make matters worse, you often Miss out on approval and are better off doing skill checks.
Personally, I tend to prefer not playing as the antagonist. What I find intriguing about this character, however, is its potential to challenge players to force morally ambiguous choices upon them that they might not usually opt for. This aspect becomes even more captivating when playing as a Paladin, where a single unfortunate roll can lead to a drastic shift in alignment. Presently, the scripted instances of evil actions don't necessarily violate my oath, and some of the dialogue choices that I feel could enhance this experience can be overlooked, representing missed opportunities.
Originally Posted by Annoyed Player
One way to fix this is by having something like a tadpole mechanic, we never got in the first place. The more you commit to urge, the better the rewards, but at a price. Companion disapproval is one way to do that (all, but maybe Minthara and Laezel should lose approval).
I'm not primarily interested in "rewards." Instead, the idea of being potentially led down a darker path through failed ability checks is personally satisfying. It's something I wouldn't usually choose, but it adds depth to my experience.
Originally Posted by Annoyed Player
-Adding a saving throw to every conversations, where you resist your Dark Urge would get annoying very soon.
I fail to see how this would become annoying quickly. There aren't that many Dark Urge dialogue choices to begin with. Additionally, there are far more dialogue options that involve ability checks for Persuasion, Deception, or Intimidation, which occur much more frequently than Dark Urge choices. Requiring these ability checks right from the start would effectively highlight the "Urge" aspect of the character you're portraying. It's worth considering that if you're averse to having Urges presented in the game, you might want to reconsider playing a character whose name suggests these inclinations.
"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.
"To me, the Dark Urge just feels like a normal character with some additional dialogue options you can easily ignore."
Same here. I often saw those dialogue options, but then I looked at other options and with the help of quicksave and quickload, I checked some of those options out. As I suspected, you don't gain anything by falling into Dark Urge, which I mentioned earlier. You can choose those dialogue options, you can resist them easily for the most part and nothing comes out of it.
"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'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:
"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?
Here it is. And a very relevant quote: "Injured beyond repair, I know nothing besides this: I must resist the Dark Urge, lest it consume my mind!"
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.
-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. Like this: I would like to talk to someone! ROLL A WISDOM SAVING THROW. I would like to switch my companions! ROLL A WISDOM SAVING THROW. I want to say something nice. ROLL A WISDOM SAVING THROW!!! If this was tabletop, I would say the DM is a sadistic asshole, who just wants to screw over a player that wrote a tragic backstory, no matter how little sense it makes. It's not fun either from gameplay perspective or narrative perspective. The way I see it is that it should come up when there are perfect opportunities for it to do so: An injuried bird, a paralysed tiefling, a prisoner who can't fight back! Then yes, Dark Urge calling in circumstances like and forcing a wisdom saving throw or something similar would make sense.
However, if you want to roll a wisdom saving throw each time you talk to NPC, then download a mod for that, because that sounds absolutely dreadfull to me and not a character I would want to play, as my own choices as a player would be striped away over tiniest things, which sounds like a terrible DND session.
My experience as the Dark Urge felt lackluster. I was really appalled at how my character slaughtered a squirrel without an ability check to resist it or anything, but seconds later I was intrigued, and really into seeing what's my character gonna do next. I tried talking to many animals and stuff, but all the way to mid-act3, besides Alfira, I've never seen my character do anything similar, and played her as a nice-hero type....
I was really disappointed not to have more challenges in trying to be good, or more hurdles thrown at me. I got almost no reactions from other party members despite trying all the dialogue options to confide in them. Fel's reveal felt out of character for me, and the demand to kill Isobel, after I had to fight to save her felt silly. IMO Violence and murder should be presented as tempting to achieve my character's goals, instead I got a weird creature demanding that I work against my already selected goals, followed by a demand to kill the one I'm attracted to.... Hardly feels like a dark urge, more like a demanding master, and his doing this while pretending to be my butler makes this even harder to believe.
Dark urge should ease us into being murderers. Start with taking pleasure in killing enemies (be they goblin or whatever), then let us off an annoying character that's impeding our progress... Tempt the player to kill the character with lowest approval rather than the one you like most. (Astarion's particularly tempting to kill, after his racist remarks about saving Gnomes. Link the murderous urge to them being annoying - Shadowheart's evasiveness, Gale's Arrogance... Or try to link it to attaining a goal like taking the artifact from Shadowheart) I would also have liked to have more options to seek help from good holy characters, only to lose control and kill my would be savior. I loved the feeling that I had no control over killing Alfira, that I need to keep innocents away from me lest I lose control and kill them etc. But to my disappointment, besides very rare isolated incidents, there was nothing.
My experience as the Dark Urge felt lackluster. I was really appalled at how my character slaughtered a squirrel without an ability check to resist it or anything, but seconds later I was intrigued, and really into seeing what's my character gonna do next. I tried talking to many animals and stuff, but all the way to mid-act3, besides Alfira, I've never seen my character do anything similar, and played her as a nice-hero type....
I was really disappointed not to have more challenges in trying to be good, or more hurdles thrown at me. I got almost no reactions from other party members despite trying all the dialogue options to confide in them. Fel's reveal felt out of character for me, and the demand to kill Isobel, after I had to fight to save her felt silly. IMO Violence and murder should be presented as tempting to achieve my character's goals, instead I got a weird creature demanding that I work against my already selected goals, followed by a demand to kill the one I'm attracted to.... Hardly feels like a dark urge, more like a demanding master, and his doing this while pretending to be my butler makes this even harder to believe.
Dark urge should ease us into being murderers. Start with taking pleasure in killing enemies (be they goblin or whatever), then let us off an annoying character that's impeding our progress... Tempt the player to kill the character with lowest approval rather than the one you like most. (Astarion's particularly tempting to kill, after his racist remarks about saving Gnomes. Link the murderous urge to them being annoying - Shadowheart's evasiveness, Gale's Arrogance... Or try to link it to attaining a goal like taking the artifact from Shadowheart) I would also have liked to have more options to seek help from good holy characters, only to have the character kill them outside your control. I loved the feeling that I had no control over killing Alfira, that I need to keep innocents away from me lest I lose control and kill them etc. But to my disappointment, besides very rare isolated incidents, there was nothing.
I agree, the butler is not a bad idea by itself, but he should be more like a voice similar to a Guardian.
"Oh, look at these goblins, they are such repelling creatures, surely nobody would miss them."
"What a uncoperative little runt, this prisoner is. Perhaps, a bit of hot iron would loosen his tongue, maybe losing an eye or two as well."
"Are you sure you can trust this little vampire spawn after he bit you? Surely he wont do it again when you least expect it? Or maybe he will..."
At the same time, I really enjoyed him tempting you with power in exchange for vile acts.
"Oh master, you could gain more power if you just got rid of this cute innocent npc. I assure you, the girl's life is worth less than what you could possibly with the power you could unleash with a bit of my help..."
To clarify, I rephrased my wording, but it seems you were already preparing a response, as you quoted sentences that I've since revised.
Originally Posted by Annoyed Player
"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.
Originally Posted by Annoyed Player
"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.
Originally Posted by Annoyed Player
"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.
Originally Posted by Annoyed Player
"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.
Originally Posted by Annoyed Player
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.
Originally Posted by Annoyed Player
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.
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. [/align]
Man, for someone that is pretending to be nice, you're doing a shitty job of it. The poster was just discussing their opinion on the DU, and you're coming out swinging with the personal attacks. Maybe YOU need to step back a bit.
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. [/align]
Man, for someone that is pretending to be nice, you're doing a shitty job of it. The poster was just discussing their opinion on the DU, and you're coming out swinging with the personal attacks. Maybe YOU need to step back a bit.
My intention is not to appear "nice", but rather to maintain a sense of courtesy. It can be somewhat frustrating when my ideas are brushed off as 'dumb,' especially considering the recurring misinterpretation of my text due to incomprehensive reading. I find it somewhat ironic that I'm being seen as the one in the wrong here. The situation is rather amusing, to say the least, but whatever. I have no problem with setting your profile to ignore as well. Good day.
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. [/align]
Man, for someone that is pretending to be nice, you're doing a shitty job of it. The poster was just discussing their opinion on the DU, and you're coming out swinging with the personal attacks. Maybe YOU need to step back a bit.
My intention is not to appear "nice", but rather to maintain a sense of courtesy. It can be somewhat frustrating when my ideas are brushed off as 'dumb,' especially considering the recurring misinterpretation of my text due to incomprehensive reading. I find it somewhat ironic that I'm being seen as the one in the wrong here. The situation is rather amusing, to say the least, but whatever. I have no problem with setting your profile to ignore as well. Good day.
HAHAHAHA, Wow, what a load of shit. I give my opinion, I question if that is a good design choice and you do what? Put me on ignore list and are ready to put others as well.
Okay, 'Omkara' if this is what you call yourself. Make your point clear and concise in a single short sentence and then we can talk. Prefferably in TLDR at the top of your post.
Right now, I get the felling you want to be constantly fighting the urges at every point in the game, with every NPC, every decision, etc. That the Dark Urge should be forced to roll a saving throw whenever they interact with anyone or anything. You want someone that literally wants to kill everyone and will kill anyone, if they fail a saving throw. If that is how you want to play, more power to you. But, if you genuinely think that is a fun way to play, I think you will find out that no, that is not how most people want to play.
It's one thing to have urges, compulsion to kill, to want to hurt others, as Dark Urge already does. Many times the narrator straight out says that you have got terrible thoughts, like the first time you meet Astarion and Gale. There are times, when you can try to resist the urge, but they are not everywhere, at every opportunity. And there are times when you do lose control of character and the urge causes harm to anothers, whether you like it or not.
Also, 'Annoying Player', really? I didn't call you out, didn't put you on ignore list, but as soon as someone disagrees with you, you put them on ignore list, AFTER you edited the post??? Hah, nice, good one, mate. But, since you started this thread, the two can play this game.
Anyway, back to the task at hand. I loved playing as a Dark Urge, when compared to TAV. Tav is a good choice for first time players, because they can play as themselves, but for all intents and purposes they are blank. And really, I like the concept of it. However, I won't deny that it's implementation is less than perfect. Because it doesn't matter how horrible you act for the majority of ACT 1 and 2, the only thing that matters that puts on the evil path is a few NPCs.
This is a bit lacklustre, no question about that. If anything, commiting to Dark Urge on certain occassions should make it easier to resist in the future. I don't think that's the case. Why? Because there aren't almost any moments where you genuinely have to resist. In fact, I believe one of the interviews stated as such. This isn't the case, probably due to early release, as it's quite obvious the game is unfinished, especially ACT 3.
Maybe in the future or in the Definitive Edition that will be changed. However, right now, Dark Urge could use more than 2 NPCs that you can kill, from what I have gathered. Maybe, torture violently Minthara or something, just an idea. Not sure, how it goes in ACT 3, if you commit to the urges.
Last edited by Annoyed Player; 29/08/2303:58 PM. Reason: Typos
My intention is not to appear "nice", but rather to maintain a sense of courtesy. It can be somewhat frustrating when my ideas are brushed off as 'dumb,' especially considering the recurring misinterpretation of my text due to incomprehensive reading. I find it somewhat ironic that I'm being seen as the one in the wrong here. The situation is rather amusing, to say the least, but whatever. I have no problem with setting your profile to ignore as well. Good day.
Bit confused about the time line. The Dark Urge went on a murder spree in 1477. Bhaal only came back to life as a quasi-deity (barely even a proper God) in 1482. How did he have the power to create the Dark Urge when he wasn't being worshipped and dead.
No idea. There are also lines indicating that the DU
is a Bhaalspawn in the traditional sense, not one somehow empowered directly by Bhaal somehow... but the Dark Urge is by default a dragonborn (IIRC you can even find default DU's corpse in game if you aren't playing as them) and that species didn't even come to Toril until the Spellplague, well after Bhaal was dead. And all the existing Bhaalspawn were dead when he came back in Murder in Baldur's Gate. Hence the significance of the whole Abdel/Viekang throwdown. So you have a Bhaalspawn sired by a dead god from a race that didn't exist yet, which would have died before the events of the game anyways.
Some real industrial-grade handwavium required to square the events of the game here.
![[Linked Image from media.tenor.com]](https://media.tenor.com/oU8nCyZnpvkAAAAM/shake-my-head-snoop-dogg.gif)
