Is there any way in Pathfinder rules to genderswap?

[XerosVeritas]

I got smacked with the Twin card from the Harrow Deck of Many Things and my DM is kind of a stickler so he's not likely to allow any 3rd party spells unless I bankrolled a wizard to research them, which he would MAKE expensive. So is there any way in the established ruleset to get my old form back that wouldn't be too expensive?

[doko239]

Girdle of Opposite Gender, cursed item from APG; only way I know of.

[Knaight]

Drawing the Twin card again should work, assuming I'm remembering correctly. It's a bit of a long shot though.

[Scots Dragon]

A single casting of Polymorph-Any-Object would cost 1200 gp from your average 15th level wizard. Less than a 10th of your wealth-by-level at level 6, and it would be easily affordable by level 10-11 if you really needed it.

[Acanous]

you could just squick your DM a little 'till he wants to give you a way to change back. :p

[Ravens_cry]

Hopefully your DM won't rule that intentionally failing your save on the Girdle counts as a natural 1.

[Answerer]

Smack your DM with the PHB?

This is exactly the sort of thing that a DM should never do. The player's character is the player's character; the DM has plenty of his own characters to mess with. Anything like this should never persist from one session to the next.

[Lostbutseeking]

Smack your DM with the PHB?

This is exactly the sort of thing that a DM should never do. The player's character is the player's character; the DM has plenty of his own characters to mess with. Anything like this should never persist from one session to the next.


Generally true, but it is the Deck of Many Things (PF style) Caveat Emptor and all that. If the the player willingly drew from the Deck he deserves whatever he gets. Followed by a note OOC not to play with the happy fun ball.

[JadePhoenix]

Smack your DM with the PHB?

This is exactly the sort of thing that a DM should never do. The player's character is the player's character; the DM has plenty of his own characters to mess with. Anything like this should never persist from one session to the next.

I'm sorry, but you're wrong.
Bad things happen to character all the time. You don't get immunity to bad things because you're a player characters.
Player characters should die, get cursed, be turned to stone... specially if they're using the deck of many things.

[Answerer]

"Bad things" are fine.

"Changing my character into something else that isn't what I want to play and there's no way to change back" is not.

The DM should have either not included that card, or else made it into some quick and easy silly side-quest to fix it. The player should not be stuck with a character they don't want.

[nedz]

Smack your DM with the PHB?

This is exactly the sort of thing that a DM should never do. The player's character is the player's character; the DM has plenty of his own characters to mess with. Anything like this should never persist from one session to the next.

Some players like this sort of thing, besides the OP now has a problem to solve.

[Answerer]

Some players like this sort of thing, besides the OP now has a problem to solve.
This player doesn't seem like one of them.

And yes, of course, if the player's fine with it then that's fine. But it sounds like the player is looking for a way out, and the DM is simultaneously not providing one, and being stubborn about using existing ways. This is not a good thing.

[doko239]

"Bad things" are fine.

"Changing my character into something else that isn't what I want to play" is not.

A small vignette for your amusement:


GM: Ok, you find a potion sitting on the ground. It is labelled "Untested random-effect potion DO NOT DRINK UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES". What do you do?

Player: Imma drinkit!

GM: <roll, roll, roll>...you turn into a bunny. Permanently.

Player: :smalleek:

If a player does something dumb, they should have to live with the consequences. This includes jumping off a cliff without flight or feather fall, tickling the Tarrasque, making a deal with Asmodeus, and, yes, drawing from the Deck of Many Things.

If he'd drawn the Imprisonment card, would you still be defending him?

Edit: Besides, this seems like an excellent plot hook for a new quest; The genitally-challenged hero must find the fabled Girdle of Gender-Bending to return to normal!

[Righteous Doggy]

Well, personally I would turn it into a crazy silly plothook...

But yes, part of the dms job is to supply fun. The cards are supposed to be a toy to entertain the group, not a problem. Hope it all turns out well.

[Answerer]

If by permanently, you mean "no, you may not roll a new character, you have to play as a bunny," then yes, I have a serious problem with that.

It is a game. It is meant to be fun. Being forced to play something you do not want to play is not fun, and ruins the game.

[Lostbutseeking]

Well, personally I would turn it into a crazy silly plothook...

But yes, part of the dms job is to supply fun. The cards are supposed to be a toy to entertain the group, not a problem. Hope it all turns out well.

A toy to entertain the group?

The Deck has destroyed more campaigns and worlds than most everything else combined.

[Righteous Doggy]

A toy to entertain the group?

The Deck has destroyed more campaigns and worlds than most everything else combined.

Yep! A toy!... I may have an odd idea on what entertainment is somedays though.

Btw, I'm not the only one that can think of a few campaigns for being a rabbit and would actaully like that am I?

[Ravens_cry]

Yep! A toy!... I may have an odd idea on what entertainment is somedays though.

Btw, I'm not the only one that can think of a few campaigns for being a rabbit and would actaully like that am I?
Heck, there is whole systems (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bunnies_%26_Burrows)dedicated to been honest to gods rabbits.
Not some anthropomorphic furry type deal, rabbits.
Rabbits whose chief interests seem to be feeding, fleeing, and the formation of further generations of rabbits.

[kabreras]

What is the problem of changing gender ?
Your DM can give you a way bad one day or an other, but gender dont change much in the way you play..
Hell unfortunate swap is a dream for any roleplay !

[Big Fau]

I'm sorry, but you're wrong.
Bad things happen to character all the time. You don't get immunity to bad things because you're a player characters.
Player characters should die, get cursed, be turned to stone... specially if they're using the deck of many things.

When the bad thing is humorous or makes the players excited, yes, bad things should happen.

When that bad thing makes the player not want to play that character or the game anymore, no, the bad thing should not happen at all.

I'm all for consequences, but the Deck of Many Things in any incarnation is a horrible, vile, damnable curse upon a campaign and it's players. No DM should use it unless they plan on ending the campaign with that deck right then and there.

Edit:


What is the problem of changing gender ?
Your DM can give you a way bad one day or an other, but gender dont change much in the way you play..
Hell unfortunate swap is a dream for any roleplay !

Some people are not comfortable cross-playing.

[Corlindale]

I would let Limited Wish do it, but that depends on the GM.

[prufock]

If by permanently, you mean "no, you may not roll a new character, you have to play as a bunny," then yes, I have a serious problem with that.

OP does not say he's forbidden from creating a new character.


If a player does something dumb, they should have to live with the consequences. This includes jumping off a cliff without flight or feather fall, tickling the Tarrasque, making a deal with Asmodeus
DM: "Don't worry, there's a quick and silly sidequest to fix that!"

[Jack_Simth]

I got smacked with the Twin card from the Harrow Deck of Many Things and my DM is kind of a stickler so he's not likely to allow any 3rd party spells unless I bankrolled a wizard to research them, which he would MAKE expensive. So is there any way in the established ruleset to get my old form back that wouldn't be too expensive?
It's still a Drawback on the Cursed Magic Item Table (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic-items/cursed-items#TOC-Table:-Drawbacks) (30-32). Commission the creation of a minor magic item that has that drawback.

[kabreras]

Why woudnt a break enchantement get ride of it anyway, it is a magic effect.

[nedz]

Some players like this sort of thing, besides the OP now has a problem to solve.This player doesn't seem like one of them.

And yes, of course, if the player's fine with it then that's fine. But it sounds like the player is looking for a way out, and the DM is simultaneously not providing one, and being stubborn about using existing ways. This is not a good thing.

The player has a problem to solve - this is a good thing because it adds depth to the campaign. He has come here for some ideas.

What you seem to be saying is that games should go something like this:

DM: "You see the entrance to the dungeon"
Players: "... We enter the dungeon"
DM: "OK, well since your characters may get hurt, or even killed, I'll just give you the loot now"

[Answerer]

I'm done with this conversation. Just about every single person who has disagreed with me, seems to think it is appropriate to put words in my mouth and turn me into a strawman. It is not appropriate, and I hope for your sakes you never attempt it in any debate more important to your lives than an argument with a random stranger on the Internet.

This is me, officially asking you to stop doing that. I am already insulted by these comments, and will construe any further attempts to pretend I said something I did not as flaming, and take appropriate action.

[Marnath]

I'm done with this conversation. Just about every single person who has disagreed with me, seems to think it is appropriate to put words in my mouth and turn me into a strawman. It is not appropriate, and I hope for your sakes you never attempt it in any debate more important to your lives than an argument with a random stranger on the Internet.

This is me, officially asking you to stop doing that. I am already insulted by these comments, and will construe any further attempts to pretend I said something I did not as flaming, and take appropriate action.

Who exactly are you talking to? I don't see anyone putting words into your mouth, or making a strawman argument. All I see is you saying bad things should never have permanent consequences and people who say they don't agree. Looks pretty civil to me.

[Invader]

Try regenerate to grow back lost appendages :smallbiggrin:

[Righteous Doggy]

Try regenerate to grow back lost appendages :smallbiggrin:

Instant body horror...

[Invader]

Instant body horror...

LOL Maybe he can get a flaw feat from it?

[Answerer]

Who exactly are you talking to? I don't see anyone putting words into your mouth, or making a strawman argument.
Let's see:


I'm sorry, but you're wrong.
Bad things happen to character all the time. You don't get immunity to bad things because you're a player characters.
Player characters should die, get cursed, be turned to stone... specially if they're using the deck of many things.
A small vignette for your amusement:


If a player does something dumb, they should have to live with the consequences. This includes jumping off a cliff without flight or feather fall, tickling the Tarrasque, making a deal with Asmodeus, and, yes, drawing from the Deck of Many Things.

If he'd drawn the Imprisonment card, would you still be defending him?
DM: "Don't worry, there's a quick and silly sidequest to fix that!"
What you seem to be saying is that games should go something like this:

DM: "You see the entrance to the dungeon"
Players: "... We enter the dungeon"
DM: "OK, well since your characters may get hurt, or even killed, I'll just give you the loot now"
All I see is you saying bad things should never have permanent consequences and people who say they don't agree. Looks pretty civil to me.
Meanwhile:

"Bad things" are fine.

Every single one of these responses is stating that I've said a thing that I never said.

But it doesn't matter; I'm not going to argue for or against or any other thing, I am only going to not allow you to pretend I've said things I haven't said.

Now that we're clear on what I haven't said, let's cease to continue to insist I've said it, OK?

[Marnath]

But it doesn't matter; I'm not going to argue for or against or any other thing, I am only going to not allow you to pretend I've said things I haven't said.

Now that we're clear on what I haven't said, let's cease to continue to insist I've said it, OK?

Yes you did.


Smack your DM with the PHB?

This is exactly the sort of thing that a DM should never do. The player's character is the player's character; the DM has plenty of his own characters to mess with. Anything like this should never persist from one session to the next.

[MukkTB]

#1 Don't draw from the deck of many things. For the same reason don't stab yourself in the chest. Also don't play Russian roulette.

#2 A DM who intentionally gender bends his players is getting into some weird fetishistic territory. Fixing it isn't too expensive. Squicking out your DM is possible. If its something he actually gets off on... Well I'd be thinking of finding another DM. D&D isn't really the place for that kind of thing unless everyone agrees to play a game of that nature beforehand.

[MukkTB]

On further thought if I got gender bent I'd ask these questions:
-Am I in a relationship with a woman?
-Am I tied in any other way to being legally male? For example only the male heir can inherit, only a male can hold this position, ect.
-Is my likeness valuable? Being recognized as the guy who slew the dragon is a good way to get free drinks and more.
-Do I come from a culture where my self identity is defined by my possession of a slong? I'MA BARBARIAN FROM THE NORTH. I HAVE A BIG SWORD! AAAARRR!
If yes to any of the above I would try to get the problem sorted.

If I had a bad reputation, was a wanted criminal, or had a bounty on my head I'd stay gender bent and pick a new name and look.

If none of the above I wouldn't probably bother with the problem. I'd just keep on doing the same old stuff working towards whatever my character's goals were. Genitals are genitals. D&D culture doesn't make women second class citizens. Whatever.

[BlueEyes]

What you have here is a golden opportunity for some interesting and fun roleplay.

[nedz]

OP

I got smacked with the Twin card from the Harrow Deck of Many Things and my DM is kind of a stickler so he's not likely to allow any 3rd party spells unless I bankrolled a wizard to research them, which he would MAKE expensive. So is there any way in the established ruleset to get my old form back that wouldn't be too expensive?


"Changing my character into something else that isn't what I want to play and there's no way to change back" is not.
The OP never said this. They just said that the spell research route is expensive, and asked what other options are available.


The DM should have either not included that card, or else made it into some quick and easy silly side-quest to fix it. The player should not be stuck with a character they don't want.
The OP never said this either.
Not including the card would be DM fiat. Providing a simple solution would be deus ex machina.


But it sounds like the player is looking for a way out, and the DM is simultaneously not providing one, and being stubborn about using existing ways. This is not a good thing.
If the DM provided a solution, that would be railroading, which is what you are complaining about.

I don't see any DMing mistake here, though there are those who argue that even using a DoMT is a mistake - but that point is contentious.

In any event the OP decided to draw the card - they didn't have to.
Drawing the card is a random event, and the PC has taken the consequence.

[Answerer]

Yes you did.
No, I didn't. Read that quote again, and point out to me where I said that "anything that might be construed as negative" should never happen. I said "this" should never happen. "This" is all I said. "This" was specifically changing the player's character in a very fundamental way that involves significant changes to how the character is roleplayed; I did not specify that because it was clear, to me, from context. Since some people seemed confused, I later clarified. At no point did I so much as hint that "this" should be interpreted as "anything negative that might happen to a player" – the fantasy world where that is a thing that I said is one of your own imagining. It never occurred. I haven't edited that post to change things, and I certainly haven't edited your quotation of it.


The OP never said this. They just said that the spell research route is expensive, and asked what other options are available.
The OP should never be penalized for not wanting to play the character that the DM foisted on him.


The OP never said this either.
Not including the card would be DM fiat. Providing a simple solution would be deus ex machina.

If the DM provided a solution, that would be railroading, which is what you are complaining about.
Neither is accurate in the slightest. One is removing a poorly-considered and potentially fun-ruining object from play (though it really does apply to the entire Deck; it's a terrible thing to have in a game); we're playing 3.5 here, the DM is very-definitely responsible for reigning in the material to remove stupid crap. Elsewise you'd start running into Killer Gnomes and similar stupid crap.

The other is turning a silly, goofy effect into a mild, light-hearted, and above-all short side-quest to alleviate the effect. To be forced to seriously roleplay as a character that is not the one you wanted, or to roleplay a character you're not comfortable roleplaying, is actively bad for the game. It's not appropriate.


I don't see any DMing mistake here, though there are those who argue that even using a DoMT is a mistake - but that point is contentious.
Including the DoMT, deciding that he's going to fiat that spell research is going to cost the OP a bundle, etc. etc.? Yes, many, many mistakes were made. The OP is forced into a situation he does not appear to be comfortable with. I don't mean the character is uncomfortable, I mean the player is uncomfortable. If a player is uncomfortable in your game, you have made a very serious mistake, I think.

[Deadlights]

No, I didn't. Read that quote again, and point out to me where I said that "anything that might be construed as negative" should never happen. I said "this" should never happen. "This" is all I said. "This" was specifically changing the player's character in a very fundamental way that involves significant changes to how the character is roleplayed; I did not specify that because it was clear, to me, from context. Since some people seemed confused, I later clarified. At no point did I so much as hint that "this" should be interpreted as "anything negative that might happen to a player" – the fantasy world where that is a thing that I said is one of your own imagining. It never occurred. I haven't edited that post to change things, and I certainly haven't edited your quotation of it.


The OP should never be penalized for not wanting to play the character that the DM foisted on him.


Neither is accurate in the slightest. One is removing a poorly-considered and potentially fun-ruining object from play (though it really does apply to the entire Deck; it's a terrible thing to have in a game); we're playing 3.5 here, the DM is very-definitely responsible for reigning in the material to remove stupid crap. Elsewise you'd start running into Killer Gnomes and similar stupid crap.

The other is turning a silly, goofy effect into a mild, light-hearted, and above-all short side-quest to alleviate the effect. To be forced to seriously roleplay as a character that is not the one you wanted, or to roleplay a character you're not comfortable roleplaying, is actively bad for the game. It's not appropriate.


Including the DoMT, deciding that he's going to fiat that spell research is going to cost the OP a bundle, etc. etc.? Yes, many, many mistakes were made. The OP is forced into a situation he does not appear to be comfortable with. I don't mean the character is uncomfortable, I mean the player is uncomfortable. If a player is uncomfortable in your game, you have made a very serious mistake, I think.

There comes a point where you need to stop arguing on the internet and let things go: it was about half a page ago. Don't pick fights on the intertubes, particularly when you are in the minority.

[Doxkid]

The OP should never be penalized for not wanting to play the character that the DM foisted on him.


 
The DM didn’t force or coerce the player into changing his character, as far as we know. From what we know, player decided that a deck of cards filled with ways to outright end his character’s career would be fun to mess around with and…messed around with it.

It DOES appear that the DM is increasing the difficulty of returning the character to normal though. Please adjust your arguments accordingly, as you seem to be quite incised.

This thread is rather amusing so far, especially since only 3 or so posts are offering advice on how to correct the problem and the rest are arguments over whether the character should be allowed to create problems for themselves and whether the DM should be allowed to make problems more difficult to solve.

I will not return to lurking, so I may capture the full power of the Rump-Rage and bottom-bluster from afar.

[Answerer]

The DM didn’t force or coerce the player into changing his character, as far as we know. From what we know, player decided that a deck of cards filled with ways to outright end his character’s career would be fun to mess around with and…messed around with it.

It DOES appear that the DM is increasing the difficulty of returning the character to normal though. Please adjust your arguments accordingly, as you seem to be quite incised.
Exactly, but I think my disdain for the DM's decisions are quite appropriate. There are expectations and bounds for both DM and players in a tabletop game, and the DM has massively overstepped his by making this an issue. The DM is going out of his way to make it hard for the player to get out of this situation – by not allowing non-PF material, by ramping up spell research costs, etc. etc – and thus the DM is now responsible for the player's condition. This is not appropriate. At all. Players expect certain things to happen to their characters – including injury and death. But this is not necessarily part of the contract. The OP does not seem interested in the least in roleplaying this situation – he seems to want out of it, and the DM seems to be stopping him.

This is unforgivable behavior in a DM. The player is uncomfortable, and the DM is not only doing nothing to help, he is actively exacerbating the issue.

[Big Fau]

What you have here is a golden opportunity for some interesting and fun roleplay.

Only if the players are comfortable with it. If even one person finds it creepy, the whole situation can ruin the fun of the campaign.

Gender-swapping is something that the DM needs to discuss ahead of time with EVERYONE involved, not just the player it is happening to. This wasn't pre-mediated, it was a random chance from one of the biggest campaign wreckers ever printed.

[Deadlights]

Anyways, back on topic, it occurs to me that you might talk your dm into running the tomb of horrors so that you might throw yourself at the trap of gender/alignment reversal.

[Righteous Doggy]

Anyways, back on topic, it occurs to me that you might talk your dm into running the tomb of horrors so that you might throw yourself at the trap of gender/alignment reversal.

OH! Nothings stopping your dm from taking the super amazing traps from it and putting them into the game your in already! Thats always fun to do to players.

[nedz]

Anyways, back on topic, it occurs to me that you might talk your dm into running the tomb of horrors so that you might throw yourself at the trap of gender/alignment reversal.

What ?
You are fixing one problem by introducing another ?
I know many more players who would be annoyed about alignment reversal since their characters wouldn't want to fix it.
Still I guess if the OP is OK with that though, it might work ?

ED: Actually whats really wrong here is that you are suggesting special pleading to the DM. This is a problem which the PC can fix for themselves.

[Righteous Doggy]

What ?
You are fixing one problem by introducing another ?
I know many more players who would be annoyed about alignment reversal since their characters wouldn't want to fix it.
Still I guess if the OP is OK with that though, it might work ?

Well... you could always remove the part about alignment reversal if you really felt like it, if a DM wanted to it could even have an offswitch on the otherside as part of the plot. So many cool things you can do when you build your own mess!

[Deadlights]

What ?
You are fixing one problem by introducing another ?
I know many more players who would be annoyed about alignment reversal since their characters wouldn't want to fix it.
Still I guess if the OP is OK with that though, it might work ?

I had figured no one would assume that to be a legitimate solution, but apparently I was incorrect. To be clear, I am kidding.

[BlueEyes]

Answerer, I don't understand what your problem is.
The OP choose to use a cursed item. Maybe he didn't know it's a cursed item, I don't know, it happens. There's only one post from the OP so far, and to be honest, I don't understand where you're taking your assumptions from, Answerer. I think you're seeing too much into this. All the OP is saying is that he won't be able to use a 3rd party spell to reverse it. Nowhere do I see the OP saying that the DM is making it harder to reverse the curse. All I see is that the DM doesn't like 3rd party spells and the OP will have to pay a Wizard to research the spell and that it will be expensive. All quite normal things, conidering that the DM doesn't have to allow 3rd party spells if he doesn't want to.
Also I see nowhere the OP saying that he totally despises the being a different gender. The OP gave us zero opinions on that matter. Heck, he was more concerned about how expensive it would be.
Unless the OP comes here and says that it's exactly like you say, Answerer, you have no right to disrespect his DM like that.

[nedz]

I had figured no one would assume that to be a legitimate solution, but apparently I was incorrect. To be clear, I am kidding.

Sorry - its been one of those threads :smallsmile:

[Shadowknight12]

If by permanently, you mean "no, you may not roll a new character, you have to play as a bunny," then yes, I have a serious problem with that.

It is a game. It is meant to be fun. Being forced to play something you do not want to play is not fun, and ruins the game.

I couldn't agree more. Frankly, I do not condone the way Answerer has been treated. We could all definitely be more civil to each other.

Having said that, there is nothing wrong with different opinions. We all just need to stop telling each other what should and shouldn't happen in other people's tables, for the sake of avoiding useless conflict. It changes nothing. It just wastes everyone's time and generates an atmosphere of bad blood.

I, for one, support using Limited Wish to turn the player back. Or, failing that, an interesting subquest to find a way to revert the curse.

[Crasical]

1.) Remove Curse/Break Enchantment from someone with a CL greater than or equal to the deck. Polymorph Any Object. Limited Wish. Hunt down a cursed girdle.

2.) The Deck is memetically such a dangerous artifact that the characters should be well aware that a single card can spell disaster, but I think the 'Campaign eating' property is overstated. It does best in sandbox games, I feel, where the world is already a breathing place that the PCs make their own adventures in, rather than following a preset track.

3.) The genderswap was a random effect rolled by the player on an officially printed artifact. Saying 'Creepy DM is putting fetishistic elements into the game!' is like deducing that he has a vore fetish because you ran into a monster with swallow whole.

4.) In light of 3, I think that briar patching by deliberately trying to squick the DM with your behavior post transformation is a bad idea. If you act all wild after a randomly rolled transformation, YOU will be the creepy guy bringing your fetishes to the table.

5.) I think that 'eh, whatever' is kind of a lame way to play off your character's reaction to their transformation. There are certainly characters who would react that way (Druids and transmuter wizards probably would barely notice. "I magically changed shape three times before breakfast. Eh."), and others might have a history of being extremely pragmatic or unflappable, but I think most characters would have a pretty strong reaction to being magically transformed, and would have reason to seek a way to be trasnformed back to their original form.

6.) I personally think it's not cool to arbitrarily permanently change a player character. The keywords there are PERMANENTLY and ARBITRARILY. In this case, I don't think it was either, as there is a definite reason why the sex change occurred, and multiple suggestions have been posited as to how to reverse the change.

[Answerer]

6.) I personally think it's not cool to arbitrarily permanently change a player character. The keywords there are PERMANENTLY and ARBITRARILY. In this case, I don't think it was either, as there is a definite reason why the sex change occurred, and multiple suggestions have been posited as to how to reverse the change.
I don't think "random chance" could possibly be any less arbitrary.

As for "permanently," the DM in question has actively gone out of his way to make it more difficult than it should be for the player to undo the effect.

[Vattic]

 Please adjust your arguments accordingly, as you seem to be quite incised.


i think you mean "incensed"

[MukkTB]

3.) The genderswap was a random effect rolled by the player on an officially printed artifact. Saying 'Creepy DM is putting fetishistic elements into the game!' is like deducing that he has a vore fetish because you ran into a monster with swallow whole.

I know this DM introduced the DoMT. See my #1.


#2 A DM who intentionally gender bends ...

I was attempting to defend Answerer. In the general case a DM who sets out to intentionally gender bend a character has taken the game to a strange and possibly uncomfortable place. A DM who introduces the DoMT is only inviting his characters to commit suicide in a novel way.

[Bhaakon]

I don't think "random chance" could possibly be any less arbitrary.

According to dictionary.com, at least, most definition of arbitrary require someone to be imposing their judgement without care for the rules. Randomness alone isn't necessarily arbitrary, and definitely not when it is specifically prescribed by RAW.

If a player choosing to draw from the deck of many things and getting a bad card is arbitrary, then so is the group starting a combat and getting one or more members killed by a string of good roles. Randomness is a part of the game, and one of the primary mechanisms to keep the DM from being arbitrary.


As for "permanently," the DM in question has actively gone out of his way to make it more difficult than it should be for the player to undo the effect.

I don't see any evidence of this. The OP has posted only once, and all he/she asked for was a RAW way to undo the gender swap, because the DM doesn't like 3rd-party material. Since when was requiring the players to work withing the official rules to solve a problem that was created within the rules "actively going out of his way to make it more difficult?"

As noted in this thread, there are a few clearly RAW ways to undo the swap, and several others which might work at DM discretion (because the rules offer no specific guidance). It's not trivially easy to undo, but the Deck of Many Things isn't a trivial artifact.

[Answerer]

my DM is kind of a stickler so he's not likely to allow any 3rd party spells unless I bankrolled a wizard to research them, which he would MAKE expensive.
Emphasis mine. He's making the player dig through books, or just have to live with a situation that makes him uncomfortable, because he's "kind of a stickler."

[Bhaakon]

Emphasis mine. He's making the player dig through books, or just have to live with a situation that makes him uncomfortable, because he's "kind of a stickler."

That's a pretty weak reasoning to infer that the the DM is, "going out of his way to make it difficult." "Things are difficult, and he's not going out of his way to make them easy," perhaps, but there's nothing in that description to suggest that the DM is "going out of his way" to do anything.

Furthermore, asking the players to find official RAW solutions to official RAW problems before reaching for 3rd party material is neither unreasonable nor bad DMing. Particularly when such solutions exist, as they do in this case. There's a lot of bad 3rd party stuff out there, and not wanting to get into a slippery slope situation as a DM, who has enough to do without having to wade through the 3P stuff and pick out the useable bits, is completely legitimate.

[Answerer]

It's a situation that shouldn't have been allowed to take place to begin with. "Getting out of it" in this case means "being allowed to have fun." The DM should never stand in the way of the player having fun.

[Deadlights]

It's a situation that shouldn't have been allowed to take place to begin with. "Getting out of it" in this case means "being allowed to have fun." The DM should never stand in the way of the player having fun.

To be fair, he never mentioned not having fun, just asked about a means of fixing the problem. For all you know, this could be an amusing romp that he is enjoying while he searches for a solution. You may be put off by this prospect, but there is no need to project your feelings onto his situation, let alone make as big a deal about it as you are.

[hex0]

Take some levels in harrower (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/prestige-classes/other-paizo/e-h/harrower) and draw again?

[Bhaakon]

It's a situation that shouldn't have been allowed to take place to begin with. "Getting out of it" in this case means "being allowed to have fun." The DM should never stand in the way of the player having fun.

If the player had an issue with the deck, then he/she shouldn't have drawn from it. Apparently, he/she thought it would be fun to do so, fully aware that there was a good chance of an extremely negative outcome.

Is the DoMT problematic? Sure, but the player agreed to use it. It's not a fun outcome, but, IMO, at least, arbitrary retconning important game events because a player did something they regret is even less fun. The issue of using DoMT at all is, in this case, long settled.

RPGs are a group activity, and one person's idea of fun isn't always going to be completely compatible with everyone else's. If your idea of a fun game requires a minimal level of verisimilitude, then not forcing a player to endure the reasonable consequences of their decision to draw from a DoMT is no fun at all.

[Crasical]

A DM who introduces the DoMT is only inviting his characters to commit suicide in a novel way.

Adventurers open doors in dark underground chambers because there -might- be a horrible monster behind it, but there might also be treasure. I don't see how gambling with your fate by drawing from the Deck is any different than any of the -other- ways PCs gamble with their lives.

[Righteous Doggy]

Adventurers open doors in dark underground chambers because there -might- be a horrible monster behind it, but there might also be treasure. I don't see how gambling with your fate by drawing from the Deck is any different than any of the -other- ways PCs gamble with their lives.

I do! You see, we expect things from a deep dark chamber, we expect in the least a saving throw when the trap goes off or a chance to fight the behemoth and tear out its superweapon. The deck however, is a no save LOL YOUR THIS NAO! item. Saving throws are there for a reason! Sure we can't tell whats behind either, but we have a chance of fighting one and not the other. Its also very different to say, deal with curses than diplomacy, or a giant monster, or dungeon delving. Very different taste in play and RP.

[Big Fau]

Adventurers open doors in dark underground chambers because there -might- be a horrible monster behind it, but there might also be treasure. I don't see how gambling with your fate by drawing from the Deck is any different than any of the -other- ways PCs gamble with their lives.

A DoMT is not a challenge though. It is not supposed to be an encounter, it's an artifact and is either a plot device or a reward. A dungeon tries to screw you over to prevent you from getting to the reward. But a DoMT introduced in the middle of a campaign is not a reward, and as far as plot devices go it's really bad for the campaign.

Module spoiler alert:
An example is Expedition to the Ruins of Castle Greyhawk. While it is near the end of the module, it has no plot-relevance to the PCs, and serves to mess with the players just before the final fight. It justifies a few changes made to a single NPC, but it has a huge chance of ruining the module and the players' fun with it.

Leaving something like the climax of the campaign to a chance based on the PCs' innate curiosity is bad writing at it's finest. While it fits the module's theme (a throwback to older editions), it will most likely end badly.

[Answerer]

Also, again, it has everything to do with expectations: what do the players expect to deal with. If you're level 1, and in the middle of taking down the whatever-level-appropriate-beasty appears at the end of a dungeon, when a 32nd level Wizard teleports in and destroys everything in sight, the players are annoyed.

Not because this couldn't happen.

Not because it's a bad thing happening to them.

But because it breaks the expectations of the game.

One of the expectations I have is that the player's characters are theirs. Put them in whatever situations, attack them or foil them, but do not attempt to change them. That's massively overstepping the DM's bounds.

[Deadlights]

Also, again, it has everything to do with expectations: what do the players expect to deal with. If you're level 1, and in the middle of taking down the whatever-level-appropriate-beasty appears at the end of a dungeon, when a 32nd level Wizard teleports in and destroys everything in sight, the players are annoyed.

Not because this couldn't happen.

Not because it's a bad thing happening to them.

But because it breaks the expectations of the game.

One of the expectations I have is that the player's characters are theirs. Put them in whatever situations, attack them or foil them, but do not attempt to change them. That's massively overstepping the DM's bounds.

While that is sound advice, I am still confused with what this has to this thread, as expectations were never mentioned as having been broken by anyone but yourself.

[Answerer]

Because the description in the OP sounded like he very much did not expect or want this situation, that's why, and it sounds like the DM is being obnoxious about letting him out of it.

[Righteous Doggy]

One of the expectations I have is that the player's characters are theirs. Put them in whatever situations, attack them or foil them, but do not attempt to change them. That's massively overstepping the DM's bounds.

Throwing it out there, but the deck mostly just outright kills you, and it was his risk. He has a chance to get it back, no ones forcing him. It just sucks and he's looking for alternatives.

[Answerer]

Throwing it out there, but the deck mostly just outright kills you, and it was his risk. He has a chance to get it back, no ones forcing him. It just sucks and he's looking for alternatives.
He's looking for alternatives because the DM's going out of his way to nix things he's aware of or making them punitive to attempt to use, hence my problem with his DM.

[Righteous Doggy]

He's looking for alternatives because the DM's going out of his way to nix things he's aware of or making them punitive to attempt to use, hence my problem with his DM.

Not really, he just has to pay up for something. If its sandbox you find something better, if its railroad well... then you get flak dontcha'? And its not like we can help with the DM. No point in complaining too much about him/her. So we can just help someone out with some suggestions and move on... and complain as a side note!

[Answerer]

Not really, he just has to pay up for something. If its sandbox you find something better, if its railroad well... then you get flak dontcha'? And its not like we can help with the DM. No point in complaining too much about him/her. So we can just help someone out with some suggestions and move on... and complain as a side note!
There I tend to agree. I'd intended to make one comment and leave it at that.

But then I got two pages worth of people putting words in my mouth, and felt the need to defend myself since there is honestly nothing I find more insulting.

[Knaight]

One of the expectations I have is that the player's characters are theirs. Put them in whatever situations, attack them or foil them, but do not attempt to change them. That's massively overstepping the DM's bounds.

However, turning them into a corpse is changing them. If the character is low level, it's changing them to the point where they are completely unplayable, as opposed to somewhat unplayable due to technically being different in the case of a sex swap*. If you're fine with characters being killed off, then your stated principle is being applied inconsistently. I have no idea whether or not you favor characters being killed off, so I really can't comment further. In any case, the whole concept of cordoning off certain aspects to a character and declaring them untouchable while leaving the rest is fine anyways, and there's really no need for an overall pattern to what goes in what section.

*To use your previous wording, a corpse fits under the "something else that isn't what I want to play and there's no way to change back" category fairly neatly up until mid level at least.

[Answerer]

No, it's not being applied inconsistently, because the risk of death is an expectation that the players have.

Also, you do not roleplay a dead character; you either get revived or you roll a new one.

And please stop trying to insist that I've actually said something I did not, or did not mean to, or that what I've said is actually the same as what everyone's said I said. It is not. And it's insulting for everyone to keep trying to pretend that it is.

[Knaight]

No, it's not being applied inconsistently, because the risk of death is an expectation that the players have.

Also, you do not roleplay a dead character; you either get revived or you roll a new one.

And please stop trying to insist that I've actually said something I did not, or did not mean to, or that what I've said is actually the same as what everyone's said I said. It is not. And it's insulting for everyone to keep trying to pretend that it is.

The existence of expectations was not mentioned prior to this post, and yes, it is being applied inconsistently unless that caveat exists. Moreover, this added two big assumptions that have absolutely no bearing on the statement without the risks being part of the original expectations:
1) The risk of death actually does exist. Given the generous fudging suggested by D&D rules (DMG I), it seems just as likely that nobody considers there to actually be any risk of death, merely a persistent illusion that there is one.
2) The risk of sex change is not an expectation the players have, despite it being explicitly outlined in several cursed items.
Changing either one of these essentially knocks off the new corollary. I'd consider changing both unlikely, as the fudging necessary for the first likely precludes use of things like the Deck of Many Things in the first place, but changing either is very much plausible. Regardless, your original statements specifically say that the character is the players, and the GM shouldn't change them. That immediately brings up whether or not killing them is alright, as changing them from living to dead is pretty drastic.

Changing a character drastically is essentially the creation of a new, similar character. It's all on a spectrum of playing a new one as opposed to playing the old one, and any change a player is likely to find objectionable is one that changes the character sufficiently for it to feel like playing a new one - e.g. gender, permanent limb loss, permanent sense loss, drastic moral change, possibly a change in possessions or known people within a tiny subset of critical ones. A change that leaves playing the character feeling just like playing the character before said change is a change that the player won't care about anyways; those changes really aren't the subject of this discussion.

What you said has implications that you didn't specifically outline, and pointing them out is not sticking words in your mouth. Moreover, your accusation of pretending that what you've said and what other people said you said is not something a subset of those other people said, and you are being hypocritical by pretending that said subset said it. Moreover, it's incoherent as people disagree with you based on positions that disagree with each other anyways, starting with the whole "bad thing" versus "change to a player's character" detail.

[Chained Birds]

So player got a Chromazon changed and can't use 3rd party material to fix it because the DM (Like me) is extremely hesitant, if not adamant, about allowing Homebrew in his/her game. Seems like there is a cursed item out there to revert you back, and a PAO spell cast on you is a pretty inexpensive solution, at least compared to a True Rez.

Hmm, and concerning the deck, I don't know. Seems like a horrible device to put in your game (I was subject to the 3.5 version twice due to my own stubbornness of trying to get a favorable result. Got Death twice...) but it does exist, and in sandbox, players may have wanted to actively search for it. Heck, there is a Prc built around the thing.

OP, just pay for the casting of Polymorph Any Object and choose to be changed back into your original form.

[Arbitrarious]

So, odd question. Would being hit by a Shifter's Sorrow weapon force you back to your natural form? It says any creature in an alternate form is forced back on a failed save. I don't know if the deck's effect is instantaneous or permanent, but if it's not instant that should do it.

Also, just my 2cp. I like having things happen to my character that actually impact them. So long as they don't outright cripple me or I have some way to work around/compensate for them. One time I was cursed so I was slowly turned to stone. Every week made a fort save. If I failed I got a -1 dex penalty and a +1 nat armor and a little more petrified. I had a decent fort so it wasn't an immediate death sentence, but 1s happen. It became a major quest to undo the curse because the caster had been a circle mage with a stupidly high caster level. Talking about a curse like that is more fun then "the basilisk turned me to stone and I failed the save to stone to flesh then got raised and lost a level" type stuff that usually happens. Of course that is all my opinion.

[Chained Birds]

How about get a high level Tetori Monk to Headlock you into your true form? I'm not sure if their Form Lock ability works that way, but would be pretty awkward to bring up to a monk without sounding like you're either trying to pick a fight or hit on him/her.

Look for a female monk to make it less... Or more... Never mind.

[Answerer]

The existence of expectations was not mentioned prior to this post
False:

[...] There are expectations and bounds for both DM and players in a tabletop game [...]
Also, again, it has everything to do with expectations:

[...]

But because it breaks the expectations of the game.

One of the expectations I have is that [...]


and yes, it is being applied inconsistently unless that caveat exists.
Even if I had not stated the caveat, it is still inappropriate to assume that an ambiguity in my statements absolutely means one thing (and then to turn it into a strawman). My very first post referred to "this" as being unacceptable. "This," I thought, was clearly forcing the player into an uncomfortable situation involving roleplaying a character they did not want. The distinction between this and death and combat, I think, is thoroughly obvious. Apparently I'm the only one who thinks so, because even when I explain it in detail people still assert that I'm actually saying that nothing bad is allowed to happen to the player.


Moreover, this added two big assumptions that have absolutely no bearing on the statement without the risks being part of the original expectations:
1) The risk of death actually does exist. Given the generous fudging suggested by D&D rules (DMG I), it seems just as likely that nobody considers there to actually be any risk of death, merely a persistent illusion that there is one.
2) The risk of sex change is not an expectation the players have, despite it being explicitly outlined in several cursed items.
Changing either one of these essentially knocks off the new corollary. I'd consider changing both unlikely, as the fudging necessary for the first likely precludes use of things like the Deck of Many Things in the first place, but changing either is very much plausible.
These are both implicit assumptions I've made. The latter I consider to be universal barring any explicit agreement among all the players in the game beforehand, because it's something that is likely to make players uncomfortable. This has been explained at length.

The former, I've seen groups like that; that's pretty common. Yes, there can be variations in people's expectations. But my statements apply equally well there; what is and is not acceptable changes, but the general concept of "breaking these expectations is a problem" remains the same. I would not have (and did not, despite the claims of numerous posters in this thread) made that a universal statement however.


Regardless, your original statements specifically say that the character is the players, and the GM shouldn't change them. That immediately brings up whether or not killing them is alright, as changing them from living to dead is pretty drastic.

Changing a character drastically is essentially the creation of a new, similar character. It's all on a spectrum of playing a new one as opposed to playing the old one, and any change a player is likely to find objectionable is one that changes the character sufficiently for it to feel like playing a new one - e.g. gender, permanent limb loss, permanent sense loss, drastic moral change, possibly a change in possessions or known people within a tiny subset of critical ones. A change that leaves playing the character feeling just like playing the character before said change is a change that the player won't care about anyways; those changes really aren't the subject of this discussion.
OOoh, a long list of things-a-DM-shouldn't-do! Forcibly changing a player character's alignment, applying non-rules-based permanent (or at least persistent) crippling penalties, stripping them of (possibly required) items? All terrible DMing in general. Anything goes if people are on board (I can't believe I have to actually specify this...), and the last one can be made workable if the DM handles it well (but most don't).

At any rate, you are continuing to assert that I've said things I haven't said. You are now telling me that regardless of what I intended to say, what I've said is actually what you imagine was said. It is not. Stop that.

Finally, why is it so hard to understand the difference between being forced to roleplay a character not-of-your-choice, and creating a new character that you get to make all of the calls on?

The #1 expectation I have as a player? I make the choices on my character. That is my objection. The DM can veto certain choices, the DM can force me to make new choices – but he does not, ever, get to say "No, you're playing this instead." That is utterly unacceptable in my mind. People are constantly telling DMs to smack players with DMGs for munchkinry or whatever; here's a case where the player should smack the DM with the PHB. The DM does not get to make decisions about what I do play, he can only state what I can't play and let me make my own decisions with the options that are left.


What you said has implications that you didn't specifically outline, and pointing them out is not sticking words in your mouth.
It is, because you aren't saying "here's this implication you didn't consider," you're saying "you said this, which implies this, so you totally did say that!"


Moreover, your accusation of pretending that what you've said and what other people said you said is not something a subset of those other people said, and you are being hypocritical by pretending that said subset said it.
Every single person I quoted said that I claimed nothing bad was allowed to happen to the players. I have not made any statements about anyone else in particular.


Moreover, it's incoherent as people disagree with you based on positions that disagree with each other anyways, starting with the whole "bad thing" versus "change to a player's character" detail.
I have no idea what this statement means.

[kamikasei]

The genitally-challenged hero...
...is not "genitally-challenged" - he has genitals, just not the ones he'd like.

Try regenerate to grow back lost appendages :smallbiggrin:
A woman is not simply a man with some bits removed.

What is the problem of changing gender ?
Your DM can give you a way bad one day or an other, but gender dont change much in the way you play..
Hell unfortunate swap is a dream for any roleplay !
Out of character, the character has been changed from what the player wanted.

In character, he's been turned in to a woman against his will. He's not a woman, he's a man. It's pretty understandable to want to get that addressed.

Genitals are genitals. D&D culture doesn't make women second class citizens. Whatever.
Gender identity and dysphoria are not things you can simply decide will or won't be issue for you. (You as a player can of course decide that your character has no strong attachment to hir gender and experiences no dysphoria, but that doesn't make it realistic.)

[Water_Bear]

I have to agree with Answerer here.

The DM is 100% at fault for;
1. Adding the Deck of Many Things into their campaign world.
2. Making a massive invasive* and unasked-for change to the OP's character.
3. Not providing the means to reverse the change without serious expense.

Players are usually fine with death; a heroic or funny death is worth the investment in creating and playing a character most of the time.

But this? Completely unacceptable.


*Seriously, why do you think Trans people commit suicide so frequently? Gender identity is a serious freaking issue, and not something to just throw at your players because of some dumb-ass random roll.

[Andorax]

Answerer, I may be reading this wrong, but the general impression I have (having come into this well into page 3) is that you've stated not just a specific instance (gender swapping), but have also made a claim with larger implications (forcing a change in how a character is played on a player) without giving a clear definition of exactly where the boundaries lie around such a change.

Others have, in turn, made assumptions about those boundaries of their own...some of them extending the boundaries outward to even include death. Without a clear understanding of where you're coming from, I can see how they can have drawn such an assumption.


Is it "inexcusibly bad DMing" to:

Change a character's gender?
Change a character's alignment?
Change a character's feats around?
Change a character's memories?
Change a character's race?
Change a character's class?
Change a character's possessions?
Change a character's status?

Where, exactly, do you draw the line...and how do you infer malicious intent on the part of other posters who are not clear as to where this line is drawn? From what I'm seeing, you've made some fairly broad assumptions of your own, in particular about the nature of the OP's relationship to his DM.


To the OP (whom I would love to have come back and post a reply to better clarify matters, for the sake of ALL involved in the discussion)...are some of the posted alternate solutions workable? Is this an issue that you're genuinely upset over?

I think the best approach is that if you are genuinely and sincerely upset over this issue, talk to the DM off to the side about this, express your concerns and how this is making you uncomforable, and ask for a "simple side quest" solution that can be implemented in one night to get you past your discomfort.

Since the situation is not designed or intended to be impairing, and does not further the campaign plot, a reasonable DM would probably respect a sincere player request.

If he doesn't...send him to this thread to join the discussion.

[Deadlights]

Is it "inexcusibly bad DMing" to:


Change a character's gender?
I don't think so, considering he choose to draw from the deck, he should deal with whatever fun he pulled. The curse lasting a few sessions before he finds a way to fix it sounds like it might make for some interesting roleplay, although there needs to be a way to reverse it eventually.
Change a character's alignment?
Well, the DM SHOULD be modifying the alignment to match the character's actions, but should have no say in how the character acts (I.E. A LG who intentionally sets fire to an orphanage sure as hell isn't LG). The obvious exception to this is something like the Helm of Opposite Alignment, which I am curious as to how others might feel about.
Change a character's feats around?
Yes
Change a character's memories?
No Opinion, I would need more details.
Change a character's race?
Same as with gender swap
Change a character's class?
Yes
Change a character's possessions?
Nope, stealing from the group is a classic move, provided you let them get their stuff back as part of the quest.
Change a character's status?
Well here's a strawman if I ever saw one, so no opinion needed.

[Answerer]

Answerer, I may be reading this wrong, but the general impression I have (having come into this well into page 3) is that you've stated not just a specific instance (gender swapping), but have also made a claim with larger implications (forcing a change in how a character is played on a player) without giving a clear definition of exactly where the boundaries lie around such a change.

Others have, in turn, made assumptions about those boundaries of their own...some of them extending the boundaries outward to even include death. Without a clear understanding of where you're coming from, I can see how they can have drawn such an assumption.
I don't need to give explicit boundaries because I was talking about this specific issue. I implied the existence of similar things that would be inexcusable.

This does not imply in any way, shape, or form that everything negative ever fits in the same category! I asserted the existence of a category of things that were inexcusable; I did not elaborate on it, however, beyond stating that changing a character's sex (or forcing them to continue to have a changed sex) was one of them. Just because I did not elaborate further on this category does not mean you get to assume what else I think is in that category! That is incredibly insulting.


Is it "inexcusibly bad DMing" to:
Change a character's gender?
Change a character's alignment?
Change a character's feats around?
Change a character's memories?
Change a character's race?
Change a character's class?
Yes, absolutely, every one. Barring, perhaps, feats or classes that are stated to be "lost" if you do X, Y, or Z – then it's not so much inexcusably bad DMing so much as painfully awful game design on WotC's part.

These are choices that the player gets to make, not the DM. The DM can set restrictions on these things, but under no circumstances ever should a DM be allowed to say "no, you're going to play this" without prior approval (which he might get for a quick one-shot or for new players or whatever; that's not the issue).


Change a character's possessions?
Not inexcusable, but at least in 3.5, it's usually a pretty bad idea. That's more of a system issue than a DMing issue, though; most characters require several magic items. If a DM takes them away, and refuses to compensate for this in encounters, then that is certainly inexcusably bad DMing.


Change a character's status?
Define status.


Where, exactly, do you draw the line...and how do you infer malicious intent on the part of other posters who are not clear as to where this line is drawn? From what I'm seeing, you've made some fairly broad assumptions of your own, in particular about the nature of the OP's relationship to his DM.
I did not elaborate further because where exactly the line is drawn depends on your group – I just think that being a **** about the gender swap is beyond the line for any group, since "making a player feel uncomfortable" is basically never acceptable.

As I stated repeatedly (despite the claims of some that I did not state it), it all has to do with what the players are expecting to have in the game. Some groups honestly expect their characters to live, and expect the DM to challenge them but ultimately not actually let them die. I'm not one of them, but a DM has to respect that (or find a new group, or the group find a new DM, or whatever). Some groups may be perfectly fine with the DM changing anything about their characters (but the DM should not assume this and should back off if a player gets uncomfortable). Hell, anyone playing Paranoia has little-to-no right to expect anything from Friend Computer, since that's the whole point of the game (though if Friend Computer starts forcing the players to indulge some crazy fetish, that would definitely count as unacceptable).

[nedz]

Is it "inexcusibly bad DMing" to:

I'll fill in the questionarre.


Change a character's gender?
I've done this routinely with Reincarnation. But then the party made this choice rather than Raise Dead based upon the Players preference.
Change a character's alignment?
Rarely: If they claim to be LG and go around murderising innocent people say, or they have acquired a cursed item then yes.
Change a character's feats around?
I once handed out Nymph's kiss to the entire party as a reward, this didn't cost them a slot. A free feat does not equal a choice of feat. I would never force a choice of feat.
Change a character's memories?
If they get hit with modify memory or something then yes.
Change a character's race?
See Reincarnation above.
Change a character's class?
No
Change a character's possessions?
Routinely: Hand out treasure
Occasionaly: Sunder weapons, rust swords, have them drop things when stunned.
Change a character's status?
I'm not quite sure what this means ?

Basically whats good for one group might be bad for another.
Make no mistake a player owns their character, but stuff happens.

[Answerer]

Adding feats, possessions, is reasonable; I hadn't considered that a part of changing things around.

Also, it's more-or-less reasonable (at least in principle) to judge someone's alignment to be other than what they claim. But that's different from forcing them to change ethics or morality.

[Chained Birds]

I want a go at this now.

Change a character's gender?
- Fine with doing this to someone if a spell or effect would cause the change. Would never go out of my way to do this, but sometimes strange stuff happens.

Change a character's alignment?
- If you say you're an alignment but behave like another alignment, I would feel incline to change it. Though I would never force them to change their sheet or anything unless they do something akin to slaughtering the innocents as a LG Paladin.

Change a character's feats around?
- Never done that before, but I guess there is a Psionic Power that can do that so maybe. Would usually foreshadow about something terrible like this happening though as I would never spring something this drastic onto an unprepared group.

Change a character's memories?
- Depending on what happens to the character. Would usually come up in stories of Brainwashing or spells/powers that can cause amnesia or memory alteration.

Change a character's race?
- Maybe, though I would probably change it for the better as certain templates may alter your race.

Change a character's class?
- I guess here is where I would draw the line, especially seeing as your character's class is essentially the character.

Change a character's possessions?
- There is a reason why Improved Steal (Pathfinder) and Sleight of Hand exist in D&D. The unprepared character may have their unattended items stolen if they are not smart about where they keep it. Like leaving a wagon full of gold outside the tavern while the party celebrates their victory. I can see a group of people thinking they can get away with it.

Change a character's status?
- If you mean the character's political status, like Warlord, Prince, Leader of Guild, etc. Then I see this as a viable thing to hit depending on the character's actions or what's been going on throughout the game. If a character with the Noble status starts beating up other Nobles like a punk, or brazenly hits on the princess right in front of the king; guess what, you will probably have your status revoked. This can also apply to a Prince who's kingdom has been completely destroyed by BBEG; guess what, you can call yourself a Prince all you want, but for now you're just a hobo with a rich backstory.

[MukkTB]

Gender identity and dysphoria are not things you can simply decide will or won't be issue for you. (You as a player can of course decide that your character has no strong attachment to hir gender and experiences no dysphoria, but that doesn't make it realistic.)

Why can't I have a self identity that isn't totally dependent on my gender? I listed ways in which my character might have reason to care about gender. If not... Well if I myself got magically turned into a woman tomorrow I'd be more interested in the fact that magic happened than the fact that I was a woman. I'd be more worried about the inconvenience of nobody believing I was who I said I was than being confused about who I am. Would I get kicked out of my home? Would people think I went and had some sex change myself? (Could I prove it was real magic by showing my Y chromosome was gone?) I'd still worry about how overweight I am. Probably even more than I do now. I'd be worried about the people I game with who aren't mature enough to deal with women making things really uncomfortable. I'd be annoyed if I lost physical strength because of the change. On the plus side I'd look forward to (probably) a slightly longer life span. In fact I'm more worried that I be turned into a decent looking woman. I've got pretty masculine features. I would not want to be the bearded lady.

If I got changed into a 7 foot tall black man that would also be a problem. (I'm white.) Not the race change but confirming my identity ect.

In short my self image is what kind of mind I am. My body results from that. Lazy -> Overweight. Being a woman wouldn't change that. So my character becoming a women in a fantasy world where for the most part women are treated the same as men really wouldn't bother me. Especially if I was a spellcaster. As a wizard or something once I made it to mid-high level I'd consider my body a kind of window dressing. Tonight I feel like being a dragon. Tomorrow I feel like being a giant face hologram projected from another plane of existence. Thursday I'm going to the theater. I'll be a short thin brunette in a slinky black dress. When I wander through town I'm a dire tortoise. When I'm at the beach I will look like Arnold Schwarzenegger.

The world of D&D is not the same as the real world. Its a make believe playground where we murder things. PC garbage doesn't fit. It doesn't even make sense. If you have a problem with your gender in D&D magic can sort you out much better than tech can in the real world.

In short kamikasei I wouldn't have a dysphoria problem being turned into a woman. Me personally. I'm not talking for anybody else. My earlier post you quoted didn't try to talk for anyone else either. It gave my assessment of my position if I was in that situation.

[Knaight]

Finally, why is it so hard to understand the difference between being forced to roleplay a character not-of-your-choice, and creating a new character that you get to make all of the calls on?


There's a difference yes. However, both of them are fundamentally the same in one aspect - they force you to stop playing the character you originally wanted to play. In neither case are you actually forced to role play a character not-of-your-choice, as you can always just choose to drop a character in favor of a new one anyways.

[kamikasei]

Why can't I have a self identity that isn't totally dependent on my gender?
You can. I'm not saying anyone's identity is totally dependent on their gender. I'm saying that for many, perhaps most, people their gender is important enough to their identity that they'd likely not be able to simply shrug off a change to it.

In short kamikasei I wouldn't have a dysphoria problem being turned into a woman. Me personally. I'm not talking for anybody else. My earlier post you quoted didn't try to talk for anyone else either. It gave my assessment of my position if I was in that situation.
An assessment you cannot actually give. If you're a cis guy with no gender identity issues you can't really have any idea how you'd react to suddenly finding yourself a woman. Saying you have no strong gender identity might be true, or it might equally or more likely be the result of never having had your gender identity seriously challenged. Maybe your character would plausibly be unfazed by a gender change, but that's by no means a safe default assumption.

The world of D&D is not the same as the real world. Its a make believe playground where we murder things. PC garbage doesn't fit. It doesn't even make sense.
In future please lead with "PC garbage" if you're going to include it in your post. It helps signal that the rest isn't worth reading before the reader wastes too much time.