Dragonlance DRAGONLANCE LIVES! Unearthed Arcana Explores Heroes of Krynn!

The latest Unearthed Arcana has arrived and the 6-page document contains rules for kender, lunar magic, Knights of Solamnia, and Mages of High Sorcery.

In today’s Unearthed Arcana, we explore character options from the Dragonlance setting. This playtest document presents the kender race, the Lunar Magic sorcerer subclass, the Knight of Solamnia and Mage of High Sorcery backgrounds, and a collection of new feats, all for use in Dungeons & Dragons.

Kender have a (surprisingly magical) ability to pull things out of a bag, and a supernatural taunt feature. This magical ability appears to replace the older 'kleptomania' description -- "Unknown to most mortals, a magical phenomenon surrounds a kender. Spurred by their curiosity and love for trinkets, curios, and keepsakes, a kender’s pouches or pockets will be magically filled with these objects. No one knows where these objects come from, not even the kender. This has led many kender to be mislabeled as thieves when they fish these items out of their pockets."

Lunar Magic is a sorcerer subclass which draws power from the moon(s); there are notes for using it in Eberron.

Also included are feats such as Adepts of the Black, White, and Red Robes, and Knights of the Sword, Rose, and Crown.

News Archive | Dungeons and Dragons

Read the full archives of Dungeons & Dragons news, Sage Advice, Unearthed Arcana, and D&D Studio Blogs.

dnd.wizards.com

 

[Micah Sweet]

Romani are a people who have traditionally been associated with thievery. Kender are a people wholly associated with thievery. The connection is obvious. Even if it was not intentional, the connection is there, and pretending that it isn't is a bad thing. As such, it is better to err on the side of not including negative real-world associations in your published game, because people are more important that a game.

Complain about logic all you like - the reasoning has been laid out explicitly. "You're not being logical" is not a rebuttal.


Again, you're missing it. Black people have been strongly associated with evil in the past. As such, making the black-skinned race an evil race is a bad idea.

Moreover, having "evil" races at all is really a bad idea, because the idea that all (or nearly all) people of a certain race will share a personality trait is in itself a racist idea.


You can keep talking about logic all you want, but we're not discussing a syllogism here. Associating whole races of people with personality traits - especially negative ones, and especially ones that have been associated with certain ethnic groups in reality - is a bad idea. It perpetuates a racist way of thinking, even if you personally can't see the connection between the fictional people and a particular group of people in reality.


Of course, you have no way of determining which is which, unless you were involved in the design discussions. Claiming that "they just did this to be woke" (which is essentially what you're saying about 'broken logic' and marketing) is easy, but you're assuming what the intent was for each particular change without having evidence of the actual reason behind the change. You're just making assumptions. One might say they're false logic assumptions.

What their reasoning was will never be provable either way. So it becomes a choice.

 

[James Gasik]

Sadly, the answer to that seems to be "no". Even if the negative traits are completely in the eye of the Beholder. No, not you, Xanathar!

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Do you think that the aim of what I'm writing is to "propagate negative stereotypes"? Wow!

Why else so vehemently oppose such a trivial change?!

This way of thinking leads to McCarty like paranoia

"Slippery slope" arguments are never valid.

 

[Stefano Rinaldelli]

Why else so vehemently oppose such a trivial change?!

I've already explained:
1. don't want to live in a world in which the weight of proof resides on the defense side.
2. don't want to live in a world where a pressure group can lead to silence somebody on the basis of false and unproven conclusions

if it is not enough for you, its a simple difference in sensitivity between me and you. And you are not authorized to come to the conclusion that I want to perpetuate stereotypes (very likely with the subtle meanings of "you are a racist")

"Slippery slope" arguments are never valid.

Father: Hey guy, if you continue to jump on the edge of the balcony you will end in falling down!
Son: Shut up you old fart, slippery slope arguments are never val... sbaaaam.

Anyway, this is not a slippery slope, we are slipped many many time ago into the pot. Reasoning with similarities is something science has explained us wrong since centuries. But still the fascination of this incorrect way of thinking is present and strong.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Why else so vehemently oppose such a trivial change?!

"Slippery slope" arguments are never valid.

I don't agree. Slippery slope arguments are an appeal to cause and effect. One thing is not guaranteed to lead to another, but bringing up the idea that it could, especially if there is precedent, shouldn't be disregarded.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

I've already explained:
1. don't want to live in a world in which the weight of proof resides on the defense side.
2. don't want to live in a world where a pressure group can lead to silence somebody on the basis of false and unproven conclusions

A very valid opinion if:

1. You are not a member of a discriminated-against group;
2. You don't care about people who are members of discriminated-against groups;
3. You don't care that people think you want to propagate negative stereotypes.

 

[Stefano Rinaldelli]

A very valid opinion if:

1. You are not a member of a discriminated-against group;
2. You don't care about people who are members of discriminated-against groups;
3. You don't care that people think you want to propagate negative stereotypes.

1- First support your accusation with proofs, than let a judge decide. Or do you think self proclaimed victims would be the judges in trials?
2- You can do better than be offensive jumping to unconsistent conclusions
3- It's called coherence: I don't care about people unable or unwilling to be able to understand what I'm saying, jumping to conclusion driven only by malice.

If you want, keep on reply, I find your position extremely useful to explain the toxic mood i feel in the air.

 

[Remathilis]

The questions seems to be becoming, "should a fantasy race be defined by any negative traits at all?"

With opinions all over the board, I'll just lay my own 2cp.

I don't think a race having a negative trait is bad. Dwarves are stubborn, elves are aloof, halflings are non-threatening, orcs are aggressive, and kender are curious. This is a part of their culture, not their biology. As such, it should be a guideline rather than a rule. Ergo, you can find easy going dwarves, empathetic elves, intimidating halflings, peaceable orcs and disinterested kender as options too, though the majority you meet would be closer to the former than the latter.

Looping this around: if the kender are to be defined by their pockets and taunt ability, it either needs to be a cultural trait (and some kender don't handle and understand property rights) or magical (kenders have just enough residual chaos magic that sometimes weird things materialize in their pockets uncontrollably). Because kender being nonmagically good at taunts and stealing unattended objects is on par with all elves having proficiency with swords and bows or all dwarves in smithing or brewing. Its a cultural trait masquerading as a biological one.

 

[Faolyn]

This is a paragraph from the Complete Bard's Handbook for a subclass called Gypsy Bard. It was supposed to emulate the gypsy performer/dancer trope. Notice what they say about private property? Notice how it is similar to a kender?

That's the issue. You may choose to ignore it, but that doesn't mean it's not there.

Oh, a gypsy-bard was a PC option. They were supposed to be heroes.

That passage goes on to say that they don't seek the wealth for their own or possessions for their own sake, and they take only what they need, as long as there's enough for everyone. While kender don't seek wealth either, they keep what they handle, don't return it or give it to someone else, and they take things for their own sake, because ooh shiny. And Roger Moore (who wrote the definitive kender, according to Hickman), says that not only will kender take anything that's not nailed down, they would use a crowbar to get at the stuff that is nailed down. Whereas the "gypsies" don't do that, according to the CBH.

The only thing the two have in common are "wanderers who don't recognize the concept of private property."

Speaking of Gypsies and unfortunate implications, let's not forget the Vistani of Ravenloft or the Aperusa of Spelljammer.

They both suck for very obvious reasons, but the Aperusa had the ability to control constellations, whose size was measured in millions of square miles, and attack with them. Not just individual stars, but entire constellations. How cool and overpowered is that?

 

[UngainlyTitan]

Negative traits are not necessarily bad but traits that encourage or seem to permit feckwittery at the table are bad and should not happen.