D&D 5E Kender as an appropriate race

[Mephista]

Can Kender be done well? Sure. Will they generally? No.

Here's the problem. Kender are a variation of halfling that's just effectively more childlike than the rest of the halfling race. As in, they have the mentality and maturity of children. They're not brain damaged, per say, but they are mentally underdeveloped. Thus, the lack of understanding of personal space/property. There are very limited stories and opertunities to run children seriously that don't end up with significant squick factor.

That's part of why Tass had to grow up in the stories. Because when things started off, he was an excited kid that had to mature through the adventures. Its called character development.

So, no, they're not an appropriate race, because children (and thus kender) are generally not appropriate concepts for going out and adventuring. Yes, good players can make virtually anything work. Should you need to be a good player to make a race work? No. And that's the standard, I think. The average roleplayer, not the best. We should be concerning ourselves with the majority in this case, not the exception.

 

[MG.0]

What if a pc doesn't want to overlook it? I think it's far less reasonable to ask everyone in the party to "overlook" one pc being a jerk (and that's how I see stealing from the party) than it is to ask one player to pick a different race.

That depends. Is the rest of the party OK with it? Is the Kender's player willing to roleplay an aversion to stealing from the disagreeable character for whatever reason?

If everyone else is being amenable (including the Kender) and one person is having a fit about it, I'd boot that player from my game. I don't tolerate jerks, and that includes passive aggressive jerks.


Edit: I'd like to make a point that Kender stealing is meant to be harmless. It needs to be roleplayed in the open. Every player will know what the Kender has taken. The 'victims' roleplay being surprised when they go to use the item in question, only to have the Kender helpfully hand it to them. I've had Kender in my groups before (not in 5th edition) and they were never disruptive, only comical.

Allowing a character to truly steal from another character without the prior approval of both players involved is disruptive and should never be allowed. Anyone claiming "that's what my charcter would do" needs to be removed from the game immediately.

 

[MG.0]

On a different note: I firmly disagree that "A player arguing "that's what my character would do" is a dead giveaway you are dealing with a disruptive player and that they deserve to insta-die (summarizing from MG.0's post). If that is the case, then you should throw out any Bonds, Paladin Oaths, etc because those affect what a character should do. In fact, extending that logic, we should altogether ban archetypes and classes since someone might use those to help determine what their character would do.

Of course someone would take it literally. *sigh*


The phrase "that's what my character would do" is often the rallying cry of the disruptive player, trying to argue a point. It is intent that matters. It has nothing to do with bonds, paladin oaths, or any other aspect of the game. It is perfectly fine to have those characteristics and intend for your character to follow them. It is NOT ok to use them to beat the rest of the players over the head with your choices.

Say you have a lawful good paladin and a chaotic evil assassin in a party and they have captured a prisoner. Prisoners seem to be a common cause of disruption when it comes time to finally deal with them. The paladin may want them spared, while the assassin may want them dead, or it might even be the opposite (the assassin isn't getting paid, the paladin sees the prisoner as irredeemable). They both have reasons. I ask that the players work out the narrative of what should happen and then the characters follow suit. Anyone at the table unwilling to work with the other players because "that's what my character would do" would be summarily removed from the game.


Edit: It's not like the player can claim surprise. I make this rule known at the start of any campaign. We are here to have fun. Anyone jeopardizing that fun is a problem. You are free to develop your character however you wish, but not to the point of stomping on the other players' fun. If characters have a disagreement on what should happen, the players should decide. If they cannot reach an agreement, then I will decide for them, up to and including removing one or more players. As a result, I've only ever had to remove a couple players, and that was a long time ago.

 

[the Jester]

The whole problem I have with this notion of 'forced tolerance' is that it robs the players of control over their characters. If they're not allowed to respond appropriately to a pc who is stealing from them (and it really, really doesn't matter if the thefts are 'harmless' or not; they're still damn annoying and not something any real group of adventurers would be prone to tolerate), then the DM is forcing them to behave in a certain way. If 'not tolerating stealing from me' is disruptive, how much more disruptive is 'stealing from other pcs' in the first place??

But to each their own. A game where the DM declared I had to just cope with a kender being a party thieving jerk or leave the game would be a good game to leave. And like I said, it doesn't matter if all the kender lifts is the spare change in my boot; if one pc is stealing from another, there is no way that anyone ought to be surprised if it comes to blows.

 

[Desh-Rae-Halra]

Of course someone would take it literally. *sigh*


The phrase "that's what my character would do" is often the rallying cry of the disruptive player, trying to argue a point. It is intent that matters. It has nothing to do with bonds, paladin oaths, or any other aspect of the game. It is perfectly fine to have those characteristics and intend for your character to follow them. It is NOT ok to use them to beat the rest of the players over the head with your choices.

Say you have a lawful good paladin and a chaotic evil assassin in a party and they have captured a prisoner. Prisoners seem to be a common cause of disruption when it comes time to finally deal with them. The paladin may want them spared, while the assassin may want them dead, or it might even be the opposite (the assassin isn't getting paid, the paladin sees the prisoner as irredeemable). They both have reasons. I ask that the players work out the narrative of what should happen and then the characters follow suit. Anyone at the table unwilling to work with the other players because "that's what my character would do" would be summarily removed from the game.


Edit: It's not like the player can claim surprise. I make this rule known at the start of any campaign. We are here to have fun. Anyone jeopardizing that fun is a problem. You are free to develop your character however you wish, but not to the point of stomping on the other players' fun. If characters have a disagreement on what should happen, the players should decide. If they cannot reach an agreement, then I will decide for them, up to and including removing one or more players. As a result, I've only ever had to remove a couple players, and that was a long time ago.

Ok, just so I understand: In the scenario above (even though I cant imagine why a lawful good paladin would be in a party with a chaotic evil assassin, much less never have cast Detect Evil to figure it out).

If the Paladin said "It is my right to pass judgment on this prisoner, and I find him unworthy and condemn him to death by the will of Tyr" but another party member disagreed (In and Out of character). When the Paladin took out his greatsword to mete out "justice" and rolled to attack, you would kick him from the game???

I guess I am in the camp of having character immersion in favor of the opposite. I get that isn't everyone's style. Maybe it comes from a long time playing in WoD: Vampire, where nearly everyone has something on someone else, and is secretly vying for their own agenda. Yet it has never come down to party PvP.

Another tacit part of this problem seems to be that if characters scuffle, is it always to the death? How many action/adventure stories have it where party members might come to blows over a serious issue? Sure, someone might get punched or have a staredown, but it can be handled maturely and actually make the story better.

Now, I get that one player should probably not be driving the game for everyone else. I have had that person in our party before. though she wasnt a kender, we had a rogue that would steal all the loot from a combat. Not stealing from other players, but the treasure. At one point, I begged the DM to calculate her carrying capacity because I knew there was no way she could carry that much loot. Nope, we had to wait until the player moved away.
So I am in agreement that if it is ruining the game, you have to talk about it OOC, but I am not likely to ban-hammer somene from the game simply because they might have written a good backstory and their behavior is well motivated.

 

[steeldragons]

1. If you're not playing in Krynn, Kender shouldn't be existing/an issue at all.
2. In all cases, Kender are to be slain on sight.
3. If you're not playing in Krynn and you encounter a Kender anyway, see #2.

 

[Plane Sailing]

I'm curious - some of the discussion talks about 'kender fearlessness' as though it is rampant stupidity of the "I'll jump into the dragons fiery mouth" variety. Is that part of the actual write up?

It's just that I could see fearlessness working hand in hand with being able to weigh up what is going to be most likely to gain the desired reward.

 

[MG.0]

Ok, just so I understand: In the scenario above (even though I cant imagine why a lawful good paladin would be in a party with a chaotic evil assassin, much less never have cast Detect Evil to figure it out).

You can come up with all sorts of reasons. Evil and good when it comes to players does not have mean EVIL and GOOD in the over the top sense. Perhaps the paladin has been friends his entire life with this person whom he wants to redeem? People can have opposing world views without being enemies.

If the Paladin said "It is my right to pass judgment on this prisoner, and I find him unworthy and condemn him to death by the will of Tyr" but another party member disagreed (In and Out of character). When the Paladin took out his greatsword to mete out "justice" and rolled to attack, you would kick him from the game???

No, I insist that the players work out disagreements over what they want to happen, out of character. Once a course has been decided that everyone can get behind, then the in-character events unfold. If the players can't agree then we have a problem. Almost always, there is a reasonable compromise that can be reached and is believeable in-game. It is only the completely inflexible, unyielding players that are a problem. Once they realize I won't tolerate that at the table, everyone settles down and enjoys playing.

I guess I am in the camp of having character immersion in favor of the opposite. I get that isn't everyone's style. Maybe it comes from a long time playing in WoD: Vampire, where nearly everyone has something on someone else, and is secretly vying for their own agenda. Yet it has never come down to party PvP. Another tacit part of this problem seems to be that if characters scuffle, is it always to the death? How many action/adventure stories have it where party members might come to blows over a serious issue? Sure, someone might get punched or have a staredown, but it can be handled maturely and actually make the story better.

Character vs. character battles are fine...so long as all the players involved agree they want to. Anyone who simply attacked another character under the premise of "that's what my character would do" is looking to cause problems and wouldn't be in my game for long.

Now, I get that one player should probably not be driving the game for everyone else. I have had that person in our party before. though she wasnt a kender, we had a rogue that would steal all the loot from a combat. Not stealing from other players, but the treasure. At one point, I begged the DM to calculate her carrying capacity because I knew there was no way she could carry that much loot. Nope, we had to wait until the player moved away. So I am in agreement that if it is ruining the game, you have to talk about it OOC, but I am not likely to ban-hammer somene from the game simply because they might have written a good backstory and their behavior is well motivated.

Motivation isn't the issue, annoying other players is. If a rogue insisted on stealing treasure the party had just won, they are being disruptive. I don't care how you try to spin it as character development, I'd let the party find out and kill them. Either the player would eventually figure out that crap won't fly with me, or they'd leave the game. I'd probably give them a chance to figure it out.

 

[MG.0]

The whole problem I have with this notion of 'forced tolerance' is that it robs the players of control over their characters. If they're not allowed to respond appropriately to a pc who is stealing from them (and it really, really doesn't matter if the thefts are 'harmless' or not; they're still damn annoying and not something any real group of adventurers would be prone to tolerate), then the DM is forcing them to behave in a certain way. If 'not tolerating stealing from me' is disruptive, how much more disruptive is 'stealing from other pcs' in the first place?? But to each their own. A game where the DM declared I had to just cope with a kender being a party thieving jerk or leave the game would be a good game to leave. And like I said, it doesn't matter if all the kender lifts is the spare change in my boot; if one pc is stealing from another, there is no way that anyone ought to be surprised if it comes to blows.

There is no 'forced tolerance'. The only thing I demand is that the players have a good time and not try to ruin it for others. Being "in-character" is no excuse for being annoying. Like I said, a Kender stealing from other players would be roleplayed in the open, and only then after being agreed to by all players at the table. If someone had a problem with it, the Kender could have an aversion to stealing from that particular player for what ever reason they care to invent (perhaps the Kender thinks he is smelly). It is only after attempts at compromised have failed would I boot someone, and only the one being inflexible. That might be the Kender if he insists he must steal randomly from all the other characters, or it might be another player if they won't play with a Kender even if the Kender has agreed not to touch that person's stuff. It can't get any more open than that. I don't require anything except that the players don't piss each other off.

 

[Umbran]

People can have opposing world views without being enemies.

So long as life isn't on the line. The problem is that, frequently enough, RPG adventurers vie with forces that may kill hundreds or thousands of people, or end the world. Then, a difference of opinion on what's the right way to go could be a difference worth killing over.