Dragonlance Would you allow Kender outside of Dragonlance?

[Dragonhelm]

That is a pretty fair statement. Many players have played thieves, of any race, in a disruptive manner and explained it with they were role-playing or in-character. The DM can rein it in, and in some groups it will come to blows. I don't think there is anything inherently disruptive or unacceptable about the Kender.

This is a point I've made numerous times. This is also akin to saying, "I'm just playing my alignment."

This topic comes up every few months, and we tend to go round-robin on this. The arguments are circular. It's almost a part of gamer culture, unfortunately. A few people have had first-hand experience with jerk players. A few others don't have that experience, but they're just sure that kender are bad. Then somewhere along the line, someone takes a couple of pages from the Dragonlance Campaign Setting and drops the f-bomb all over it and thinks that's funny. (Reported, btw.)

Then there's a few of us who have actually played kender the way they should be played. And we didn't rob the party blind. We didn't jump into the heart of danger with no regard for the party. After all, kender are fearless...not stupid (according to one Nightshade Pricklypear).


So here is my challenge to you. Play a kender. Research it first.

Kender aren't for everyone, and that's okay. But before just dismissing them out of turn, give it a shot. You just may have fun!

 

[Shasarak]

Biologically, a race that couldn't experience fear couldn't survive. It is such a simple biological imperative, a lack of fear combined with the happy-go-lucky attitude would get the species killed real fast.

Biologically either they would not survive or they would be the biggest bad asses on the planet - since with out the Flight mechanism they would be all Fight!

But in actuality since they were created by the Grey Gem they do not need to worry about biological evolution.

 

[wedgeski]

But in actuality since they were created by the Grey Gem they do not need to worry about biological evolution.

Exactly. I get why bad players give kender a bad rep, but the nonsensical "biological dead-end" arguments are silly. We're talking about a world smashed from Chaos, where two of its major demi-humans were formed by a mystical gem floating across the countryside sowing wild magic. No-one evolved from anything.

 

[asorel]

Exactly. I get why bad players give kender a bad rep, but the nonsensical "biological dead-end" arguments are silly. We're talking about a world smashed from Chaos, where two of its major demi-humans were formed by a mystical gem floating across the countryside sowing wild magic. No-one evolved from anything.

Natural selection does not end with the presence of magic. Magical creation or not, the species, with its mannerisms, is not equipped to survive for anything approaching the long term.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Biologically either they would not survive or they would be the biggest bad asses on the planet - since with out the Flight mechanism they would be all Fight!

...yeah, I gotta say, when I think "knows no fear," I think....honey badger. Or wolverine. Or tasmanian devil. Or similarly irritable, aggressive, burrowing mammal.

But I suppose with kender, it's a more childlike willingness to explore in dangerous places.

...which means that kenders are pretty creepy mad scientists. They are not afraid of the moral repercussions of their actions, and have no qualms training the magnifying glass on the anthill....gnomes blow stuff up, but a kender will make owlbears because she was curious....

 

[Coredump]

Biologically either they would not survive or they would be the biggest bad asses on the planet - since with out the Flight mechanism they would be all Fight!

But in actuality since they were created by the Grey Gem they do not need to worry about biological evolution.

This is ridiculous. When I walk along the top of a building, my not jumping isn't because I am filled with fear; I don't jump because I know I will die. Just because you are not living in fear of the consequences, does not mean you are unaware or unconcerned with the consequences. It means that, as a race, you need to be a bit careful about how you reason out your decisions.

Most 'fear' is actually the result of the logical thought process. A baby isn't 'in fear' of a sharp knife, they have to learn that it is dangerous. So would a Kender. After learning, the baby would be in fear of the knife and know to avoid it. The Kender would just know to avoid it.

 

[the Jester]

Sorry to drag you back in here.

I am not going to name the cultures, but I have had experience with several undeveloped* cultures where they have a hard time grasping the idea of personal property. I think it is because they view ownership in terms of need and want. If an individual wants or needs something he possesses, he would protect it. So if it is unprotected, and you want or need it, then you should take it, and if the current owner gets mad he or she is being miserly.

So when they experience cultures of ownership it seems to them that everyone is really particular and selfish about their things, and either they stop taking things or learn to hide it better. Even so, in my experience, they tended to view it as a shortcoming in American culture.

If you add a fantasy-level helping of "very absent minded" to that culture, I don't think Kender are that far off.

Which is absolutely no defense against a violent, possessive murderhobo who gets full of rage when your fingers are in his pockets.

Kenders are, bar none, the WORST race every made for D&D. They are designed to undermine party unity, to break the social contract that many, if not most, groups adhere to ("don't steal from the party") and pretty much strictly to be annoying as hell. They are even worse than DL's stupid tinker gnomes and gully dwarves!

Obviously, YMMV- feel free to include them in your game if you want- but IMHO a player wanting to be a kender is a serious warning sign that that player may not work out at a (typical) table. (Or at mine.) Granted, this is just a matter of playstyle preference, but kenders set off huge warning bells for most anyone that wants to take their game seriously or that wants a group that works together instead of having the wander-off-with-your-stuff guy in it. I know, the argument is that "bad player, not bad race!", except the race is explicitly written to encourage bad pc behavior. (Well, bad for the group.)

 

[AverageCitizen]

Which is absolutely no defense against a violent, possessive murderhobo who gets full of rage when your fingers are in his pockets.

Kenders are, bar none, the WORST race every made for D&D. They are designed to undermine party unity, to break the social contract that many, if not most, groups adhere to ("don't steal from the party") and pretty much strictly to be annoying as hell. They are even worse than DL's stupid tinker gnomes and gully dwarves!

Obviously, YMMV- feel free to include them in your game if you want- but IMHO a player wanting to be a kender is a serious warning sign that that player may not work out at a (typical) table. (Or at mine.) Granted, this is just a matter of playstyle preference, but kenders set off huge warning bells for most anyone that wants to take their game seriously or that wants a group that works together instead of having the wander-off-with-your-stuff guy in it. I know, the argument is that "bad player, not bad race!", except the race is explicitly written to encourage bad pc behavior. (Well, bad for the group.)

I understand the problem. I just think that players need to be responsible for their character's place in the party and the world. If a player wants to play a klepto or a loner or a reluctant hero (which I think are the 3 most difficult archetypes to incorporate into the RPG conceit) I explain to them that their CHARACTER can have flaws, but the conceit of the game is that for some reason, they work with the party. Furthermore, it is not my job as a DM to invent a reason for their character to do so. So if a player wants to play a character who tries to escape the adventuring life at every opportunity but somehow always gets dragged back in, I give him creative control over those circumstances so he can drag his character kicking and screaming all the way to level 20, if he wants. I make it so its a fight between the character and his player, not the player and his DM. I think a similar solution would work for Kender. It is the Player's responsibility to work something out at the table to maintain the players relationships with one another. It is not my job to keep the characters together, I delegate that to the players, and cede whatever creative control necessary to make it work.

This only works if the player has genuine interest in Kender. If the players wants to play a Kender just so he can be a dick, then kick him out. You don't need him.

 

[Coredump]

Which is absolutely no defense against a violent, possessive murderhobo who gets full of rage when your fingers are in his pockets.

Kenders are, bar none, the WORST race every made for D&D. They are designed to undermine party unity, to break the social contract that many, if not most, groups adhere to ("don't steal from the party") and pretty much strictly to be annoying as hell. They are even worse than DL's stupid tinker gnomes and gully dwarves!

Obviously, YMMV- feel free to include them in your game if you want- but IMHO a player wanting to be a kender is a serious warning sign that that player may not work out at a (typical) table. (Or at mine.) Granted, this is just a matter of playstyle preference, but kenders set off huge warning bells for most anyone that wants to take their game seriously or that wants a group that works together instead of having the wander-off-with-your-stuff guy in it. I know, the argument is that "bad player, not bad race!", except the race is explicitly written to encourage bad pc behavior. (Well, bad for the group.)

If you have a player that is being "annoying as hell" or is "wandering off with your stuff" or "undermining party unity" and is in any way using their PCs race *or* class *or* background to validate their boorish behavior.... then you need to find better players.

None of those things are necessary when playing a Kender, nor a rogue, nor a teifling, nor etc etc

 

[the Jester]

If you have a player that is being "annoying as hell" or is "wandering off with your stuff" or "undermining party unity" and is in any way using their PCs race *or* class *or* background to validate their boorish behavior.... then you need to find better players.

None of those things are necessary when playing a Kender, nor a rogue, nor a teifling, nor etc etc

No, but the kender race explicitly encourages it. I mean, it just about whispers in your ear, "Hey, you don't understand personal property and know no fear; why would anyone take offense to your having their stuff? Snicker. You can get away with it. C'mon!"

IMHO the kender offers nothing good that the halfling doesn't do better. But again, this is a playstyle preference thing.