More actions
Yeah, thanks guys.
(Unsigned comment by User:StartFromZero)
Warning: Act 2, Killing Target before Assignment
I just lost 5 hours of progress. So, beware. If you kidnap your target at the Last Light Inn, you won't be able to kill them for your Dark Urge.
(Unsigned comment by 96.237.148.43)
Inaccuracies within this Article
In the "The Dark Urge's past sins" two assertions are made:
- The Dark Urge had a sexual relationship with the Elder Brain
- The Dark Urge had a sexual relationship with Orin
There are no citations given and heavy, heavy leaps in logic are required on both.
Dark Urge and the Elder Brain
This seems to come from Open Your Scar's line after communicating with the Elder Brain in the broken crack in Moonrise Towers. It reads as such:
The slimy thing in the Moonrise crack called you its fallen star. It was very reverent. It must have known you when you were still in one piece. See? You are worse than everyone else. Filthy hierophant of the broken and the damned. And apparently good at playing with tentacles. The illithid tide can be dominated by you.
To assume that "playing with tentacles" = sex, is just silly and feels like someone's headcanon more than anything. If you read the entire, completed journal entry for Open Your Scars, it is dripping with sarcasm and straight up mocks the Dark Urge at various points. We do not know who the perspective of the journal is even from, and it previously refers to the Dark Urge as an "amnesiac carriage-crash-pile-up you." Its insults should be taken with a heavy grain of salt.
In the actual conversation with the Elder Brain, it calls the Dark Urge the "disgraced master," "heir," "tyrant," and says that the Dark Urge "gave us everything - disappeared." There's simply no indication that the Elder Brain saw the Dark Urge as anything other than a worthy ally.
The Dark Urge and Orin
This is even less substantiated than the prior claim and lands staunchly in headcanon territory. Quite literally the only thing Orin as Zethino says that could imply this is "Your bond is false, and I know why. Because your heart belongs to another. Close your eyes, and she will show herself to you." But the problem is...she says that to every character, every single origin gets those lines.
The only extra dialogue Orin gives for Dark Urges is this:
- "Look at it, come crawling home, hands stained with the Bone Lord's soot. And you carry his stone. You waste time soft-soothing these flesh bags for the knife. I could end it now - but I'll be patient. Father will see us together again. He will see you bleed."
If this is the second encounter the player has had, she instead says:
- "I see how you slip-slither closer, belly dragging in the filth. Father is laughing at you."
The "Father will see us together again" line, to be clear, is in reference to the dream the Dark Urge has during a long rest scene that occurs after starting Act Three. In the dream, Sceleritas comes to the Dark Urge and says, "Dear sister must die by your hand, an offering in Bhaal's sanctum" and that the Dark Urge must become the last of their line. The seeing together line is a reference that Orin knows they must duel each other to the death to see who the lone heir is.
Additional Information Against Orin and the Dark Urge
If the Dark Urge goes to Sharess' Caress and speaks to Nym and Sorn Orlith, there is an option to say "You two look uncannily alike." The subsequent dialogue option for the Dark Urge specifically if they choose to have a three-way with the twins is "I suppose I haven't ticked incest off the moral atrocities to-do list yet." This would imply that they have not experienced this before.
Substantiated Claims
For the sake of providing evidence, the first two claims in the article's section are accurate. There is clear evidence to indicate the Dark Urge engaged in both cannibalism and necrophilia pre-amnesia. Those claims, there are no issues with.
Cannibalism
The Dark Urge can partake in cannibalism at the Goblin Camp by eating a chunk of the roasted dwarf Brian, earning the inspiration point "Good Ol' Long Pig." (Long Pig being a well-known colloquialism for human flesh) So this does confirm that the Dark Urge engaged in cannibalism and can do it again post-amnesia. So, this point is correct.
Necrophilia
The Dark Urge seemingly engaged in necrophilia, as it was referenced by Sceleritas Fel the first time he appears in camp (after murdering Alfira/Quil and long resting again) in Act One. A video of someone playing through that can be found here. So, again, this point is correct.
(Above unsigned comment made by User:Reve)
- Seems like pretty solid evidence to me. Kudos for the precisely cited sleuthing. Also for future reference, four tildes (
~~~~) will automatically sign your comment! It's helpful to help keep track of who wrote what. - Sky (talk) 22:52, 4 October 2023 (CEST)
- Added the Elder Brain references back in. While it is definitely playful wording, it is impossible to ignore the obvious reference in the journal. Should probably be rephrased at some point, though. I think the Orin dialogue can be removed, mainly because while the incestuous undertones are definitely there, the fact is that Orin also acts like that with everybody. In the future, it's best to start the discussion on talk page before removing information. If no one engages for a while, it is probably ok to remove it. Willowisp (talk) 19:18, 5 October 2023 (CEST)
- I don't feel like it's correct to leave that fact under "past sins" at all... the other two past sins have very solid evidence while the only evidence for hot slimy tentacle sex is a vague insinuation by a non-diegetic source ( the quest journal isn't written by anyone). It seems like the actual interactions with the Elder Brain suggest no tentacle sex occurred. I would suggest nixing it from "past sins" entirely and maaaybe adding it to the elder brain section, but again I also disagree that anything happened at all.
- I also disagree with the "discussion before removing information" when the information in question was reasonably thought to have been inaccurate. I think remove-plus-talk-page is a good combo. "Discuss before remove" is more of a policy for protected/controversial pages rather than the norm. Ofc, the dark urge page might in the future be controversial enough to protect, but at the moment that doesn't see to be the case! - Sky (talk) 19:26, 5 October 2023 (CEST)
- I don't see how the wording is claiming there was any actual copulation involved – it's a journal entry playfully invoking a common trope. I agree it should not be in the past sins section, though. It's more relevant for the article of the quest itself, than the Durge page. Discussing edits that have been in place on the wiki for some time before removing them has been the convention for some time. It's not simply for protected pages, of which we only have one (the Style Guide), I believe. In this case, the entries in question were added early in the article's lifespan at the request of another user, and have been around for over a month through several revisions. It is absolutely the policy to discuss (here or on the discord) before removing the entries, then, since they were sourced, and the disagreement was with the interpretation of said source. There has already been previous discussions elsewhere where it was decided the edits should stay. Therefore they should not be removed without further discussion, regardless of our personal opinions. Willowisp (talk) 20:28, 5 October 2023 (CEST)
- I will say this...the reason I made the edit in the first place is because it caused a sizeable scuffle in the fandom due to the information being presented as 100% fact instead of the heavy interpretation that it is. If you would like to believe in that piece of headcanon, more power to you. But it's not objective. If you want to refer to the Open Your Scars journal entry...then the most objective method would be to quote it directly without the biased interpretation. Literally just say "The journal entry for Open Your Scars refers to the Dark Urge being 'good at playing with tentacles' in regards to the Elder Brain. However, the entries for that quest are not necessarily serious, and are open for interpretation." Then, people can decide if that means they actually had sex or not, instead of forcing that point of view on the reader. What is "obvious" and "definite" to you, in your interpretation, is not the case for others. I'm bowing out of this discussion now, but I will end with this - if you want BG3.wiki to be taken seriously as an accurate and unbiased source of information, allowing highly interpretive statements like this is not a great way to do that. Reve (talk) 23:19, 5 October 2023 (CEST)
- The part is currently phrased in a way that clarifies it's likely just playful wording. We'll let a day or so pass, and if no one else has chimed in, we can remove it. If it's important to people, someone will likely re-add it, at which point a longer discussion may be needed. I am confused as to why you are saying I am forcing a viewpoint down people's throats, since my interpretation is in agreement with yours. This is a wiki. Any single person does not decide what goes on here and doesn't. To prevent any edit conflicts and the potential protection of articles, it's best to have a discussion before removing long term elements from a page. I hope you can understand that. Willowisp (talk) 00:19, 6 October 2023 (CEST)