From what I know in EA it seems like Tav/dark urge were the same character. TAV had some strange murderous vision at the end of one of "Daisy" (the guardian) dream.
I think they chose to separate the two origins because Durge is a very dark character, and it kind of limit the chance to roleplay.
Still, while I can't play Durge as a shining knight, I find their story of redemption much more compelling then playing a blank slate like Tav.
And honestly I don't understand why they said to save Durge for a second playthrough because "the story changes too much".
I mean, almost all death are avoidable and you can roleplay as a "good" character. The changes are the connection that Durge has to the story, that is much more compelling.
Again, the only problem is the lack of reactivity, that I can't still "forgive" apart for that scene.
Seriously? I didn't know they were originally the same character. I wish I had played Early Access to appreciate all the things that have changed and to be able to experience all the content that no longer exists.
I know it's an unpopular opinion, but I wish they hadn't made two separate characters and gone all in on Durge. This would have allowed that the story of our character and the story of the game were better connected, potentially resulting in an excellent and richer narrative. Dark, yes, but compelling, well-written and solid.
But I also understand that people like to create their own headcanon about their character's background and this gives them more freedom to roleplay, and that the darkness surrounding Durge is not everyone's cup of tea. On the other hand I also think that a lot of casual players don't get to deep and give Durge a chance because they think that playing them takes you away all freedom to roleplay and forces you to do evil, when we know that this doesn't have to be the case and actually, the path of redemption is -in my opinion- more satisfying to play.
Anyway, sorry for rambling on with my thoughts xD
