To the contrary, I think that intent to inconvenience people who don't make the choices the website wants but doesn't need the user to make can be enough to make a UX pattern a dark pattern in most cases. There's no need for a strong consequence, and there's no need for users to actually fall for the deception. There doesn't even need to be a deception to fall for.

Suppose that I shop online. I add an item to the cart. Then I decide that I don't want the item anymore, so under a minute later I go to the cart and click the cancel button. Fully transparently, the website tells me that I need to wait 1 minute after clicking "add to cart" in order to remove the item. The website always does this for items in the cart, but doesn't present the waiting as a feature of the service. It's not as if having multiple items in my cart means that I have to pay for all items vs. none at all; I can select which items in the cart to buy at any given time, so there isn't any strong consequence. But making me wait to permanently remove the item from my shopping cart is a dark pattern by default. (There are ways to make it not a dark pattern, such as transparently making the advertised gimmick of the online store "You need to wait 1 minute to remove items from the cart. Shop slowly and responsibly!". Wordle uses what would normally be a dark pattern - making people wait to play a game which needs no waiting - and turns it into a core advertised feature, a core charm point.)

Or the classic one: anyone can sign up for an account and subscribe to the service but to cancel you need to call and speak to a retention specialist over the phone.