D&D 5E Kender as an appropriate race

[Mercule]

I agree that the way most folks interpret Kender, they are unplayable as a PC (or NPC) race. This is why I do not typically allow them.

If interpreted in a way such that they don't experience the emotion of fear, but are still rational and intelligent enough that they can deduce when certain courses of action are likely to end their enjoyment, with prejudice, they are playable. The whole property thing is still problematic, as are a few other elements, but they're playable.

I've had exactly one attempt to play a kender (in the guise of a slightly disturbed halfling using the stats for kender), in my games, that went well. He was more played with a wide-eyed naivete and wonder, than reckless abandon. The player was absolutely marvelous in his portrayal of the character. He did, however, base the character's actions and attitudes on a patient he'd met while working in a mental hospital. That gives me serious concern for the viability of a race of people with that outlook, even if the occasional individual works well.

In general, I'm not a fan of kender. I don't include them in my games. If the right player really wanted to play one, I might allow it, but I'd rather not. I also find it very annoying when people try to play any given halfling as kender-ish. IMO, that happens because halflings don't have any real inherent archetype, which is why I typically don't add halflings to my homebrew worlds.

 

[the Jester]

Kender are an awful, awful race with built-in intraparty conflict as their main racial tendency. Sure, someone might be able to play a viable kender pc if the situation is right, if the other players go along and if the pc in question downplays all the racial stuff that makes kender kender. Personally, I have no interest in such a race, except as an example of what not to do when creating a character.

 

[Mouseferatu]

Okay, first, my post from the other thread:

Problem players may gravitate toward kender, and kender may encourage behavior that can be a problem. But it's by no means a given. I ran a long-term campaign with a kender PC, and he was one of the most popular characters in the game. People still talk about how good a job that player did, how much fun it was--and this campaign ended in the late 90s.

Because the player recognized how disruptive kender behavior could be, and made a point of not crossing the line. The stuff he "borrowed" from other PCs? It was always flavorful stuff, stuff where there could be some good RP off of it. Never anything vital. Never anything mechanically significant. Never anything that the player or character would be truly pissed off about. Outside those bounds? He was "finding" stuff all the time. But problematic? I don't remember clearly enough to say there was never a problem, but if there was, it was once or twice over the course of a campaign that ran for over a year.

(Plus, he mapped in-character. It was hysterical.)

My point is, it may be a concept that only a narrow pool of players can play well. But it still comes down to the problem being the players, not the archetype.

It's been said that choosing which items to steal is "downplaying the kender personality," but look at the books. Remember when Raistlin couldn't prep spells because his spellbook was gone, or Sturm got in trouble because his sword was missing? No, because they didn't happen.

Second, as has already been stated, there's a difference between not feeling fear and not understanding the concept of danger. Tasslehoff was quite capable of understanding that taking certain actions would get him and his friends killed, and--so long as he took the time to think things through--chose not to take those actions. It's like playing any other sort of impulsive, impetuous character. If kender truly couldn't comprehend the notions of danger and self-preservation, the race would have died out.

The fact is, playing any character is a matter of deciding which personality traits of theirs are primary and which are secondary; and it is always a matter of deciding on how to far to take a character vs. possibly disrupting the game.

Now, don't get me wrong. Playing a kender can absolutely be problematic, and I'm actually not a fan of having them in most campaigns. But it's simply not true that they cannot be played viably. As I said, I've seen it in person.

 

[aramis erak]

Kender are, canonically, capable of fear. See DL5A, under the racial section for "Afflicted Kender"...

..they just don't experience fear in a short term, "fail a morale check" kind of way. Fear cannot drive a Kender the way it can a human. And they ARE capable of seeing consequences and making rational choices to retreat.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Cadriel]

Kender should be retconned out of existence. Like, "Oh hey, they're actually completely normal halflings, who consider 'kender' a racial slur. Tasslehoff Burrfoot is actually insane and was only ever tolerated because he was a really, really good thief. If you play a PC like that, a red dragon will swoop out of the sky and eat you. Also, the hoopak staff - that was Tasslehoff too."

 

[Li Shenron]

I don't know what Kender you hate so much, because the only 5e version I personally know is the one included in the playtest, and it was practically harmless from an intra-party conflict point of view:

Kender Pockets: Kender constantly pick things up and pocket them, and then often forget about them. If you find yourself in need of a piece of nonmagical equipment, there is a 25 percent chance you have it. Roll a d4. If you roll a 4, you find the item in your pocket, pack, or pouch. If you roll anything else, you don’t have such an item on you, and you can’t search again for the same item until you’ve spent at least one day in a town or city. Rummaging through your pouches, pack, and pockets in this way takes 1 minute.

This doesn't say that a Kender PC has to specifically steal from the party, but even in that case nowhere does it say that he has to steal important or valuable stuff. To a cleptomaniac, stuff has a different value than to a thief, the less valuable items are also the less obvious and therefore probably the more attractive to him. In addition he obviously won't "pocket" your magic sword or your spellbook: they are way too bulky for him to conceal them or for you to not notice they are missing for more than a couple of minutes. He won't sell them, because that's what maybe a thief would do, but a cleptomaniac would hoard.

In the event the Kender steals something vital from the Barbarian and the latter decides to kill the first, this is as much as (or more of) a failure of the Barbarian player than the Kender's, in not understand what the game is about. In my games, stealing from other PCs is vetoed just as much as trying to kill them, but at least the first is easily reversible, the second is not.

All in all, a problematic Kender is pretty much the same phenomenon as a problematic CN or a problematic evil character or a problematic Paladin. They are always the result of a player who chooses to be disruptive. Get rid of the player instead of the character.

 

[Wik]

Okay, first, my post from the other thread:



It's been said that choosing which items to steal is "downplaying the kender personality," but look at the books. Remember when Raistlin couldn't prep spells because his spellbook was gone, or Sturm got in trouble because his sword was missing? No, because they didn't happen.

Second, as has already been stated, there's a difference between not feeling fear and not understanding the concept of danger. Tasslehoff was quite capable of understanding that taking certain actions would get him and his friends killed, and--so long as he took the time to think things through--chose not to take those actions. It's like playing any other sort of impulsive, impetuous character. If kender truly couldn't comprehend the notions of danger and self-preservation, the race would have died out.

The fact is, playing any character is a matter of deciding which personality traits of theirs are primary and which are secondary; and it is always a matter of deciding on how to far to take a character vs. possibly disrupting the game.

Now, don't get me wrong. Playing a kender can absolutely be problematic, and I'm actually not a fan of having them in most campaigns. But it's simply not true that they cannot be played viably. As I said, I've seen it in person.

Fully agree with all of this. I'm not a huge fan of kender myself, because I find they give players a reason to be "funny" (and often the guy that wants to play "funny" is probably the last the guy you want to be trying) - it's the same reason I usually dislike gnomes.

But to say that the race is unplayable unless you don't follow the race description? Absolutely not true.

 

[Remathilis]

Kender CAN be played well, but like a lot of other races, it gives a open card to anyone who wants to abuse the notion. (See also: warforged & doesn't get human culture and Drow/Tiefling/Half-orc & evil PC syndrome).

I allowed one kender in my game long ago, and it ended like you'd expect it to. Haven't since then. Personally, kender is the first (among many) reasons why Dragonlance is a better novel setting than game setting. IMHO and all that.

 

[Umbran]

An individual playing a kender-like character, by an aware player, may be feasible. I'll call it unlikely, but possible.

Kender, as written, would not form a functioning or sustainable society, nor would they be typically tolerated in a functioning society.