Urizen wrote:

I'm currently playing a halfling rogue in an active Golarion campaign that is modeled off the kender. Some may say annoying, but I'm having a blast with his naiveity and aloofness to the seriousness of the situation(s) at hand. :)

Well yeah, they're fun to play, TONS of fun to play, but they're NOT fun to have around.

I try not to push my limits, but telling him to stay still for a couple of hours after he breaks into a building where they're trying to recapture an artifact? Well.....that doesn't work too well. Last thing heard on the message spell. "Oops."

I like Kender...

... lightly sauteed, with just a hint of butter.

Gnomes in any setting are almost as annoying as Kender... at least the way most people I've seen play them.

Kthulhu wrote:

I love kender, they're a lot better than Tolkien-clone halflings.

No, they aren't. Everything about kender is annoying. They refuse to learn lessons. They steal from their friends. Their signature racial ability is annoying foes. I don't think a race whose entire schtick is annoying the hell out of everyone they meet is good for a collaborative game.

For what it's worth, I myself absolutely adore Kender, and use them in my campaigns whenever possible.

They're so much fun. "Oh, hey Kaventi, you dropped this."

I think the key to remember is that kender aren't malevolent. They aren't trying to steal, they just have no sense of private property.

So, does that mean that Kenders are communists? ;)

So, does that mean that Kenders are communists? ;)

hmm, I always saw them more as innocents. They don't really worry or care about material stuff. As long as they have a meal in their belly and a road to walk they're happy.

Or at least, that's what Uncle Tas told me ;)

I beg to differ about material stuff. Have you ever emptied a kender's knapsack? ;)

I beg to differ about material stuff. Have you ever emptied a kender's knapsack? ;)

Actually, yeah, I have. Also I've found alot of things that have no value at all to them. Children's toys, random tools and pieces of metal, snakeskins and cattle horns, all sorts of odds and ends that no human in their right mind would bother 'picking up from the ground'

Yeah they end up grabbing valuables too, magic items, jewels, etc, but the book specifically says that their grabbing random stuff because it's interesting and their curious, not taking valuable things for their value.

The value of an item totally depends on the person who perceives them as being valuable. I've seen some very expensive children's toys out there without any rhyme or reason why aside from it being a must have. ;)

The value of an item totally depends on the person who perceives them as being valuable. I've seen some very expensive children's toys out there without any rhyme or reason why aside from it being a must have. ;)

Damn you pokemon marketing! I want to catch 'em all, not buy 'em all!

It's still stealing to the unfortunate victims of the Kender's so-called "innocence". I'd commit genocide on every one of the filthy little thieves. No one takes -my- stuff and gets away with it.

It's still stealing to the unfortunate victims of the Kender's so-called "innocence". I'd commit genocide on every one of the filthy little thieves. No one takes -my- stuff and gets away with it.

Guess it's a good thing your not in my campaign then lol, my kender PC's kick major butt, and their backed up by bigger people who kick even more butt and refuse to let their friends be harmed.

EDIT: You could also watch the movie.

I know that most DL fans hated it, but I got a lot out of the DL movie. I've watched the DVD four times so far! ;p It condenses the story quite well and has some great VOs. It doesn't look like a millions dollars, sure, but that's because they didn't have a million dollars. Ill-advised animation choices aside, I like the movie and I'm sure my kids (when they pop out) will too.

Peace,

tfad

I liked the books when I was in HS, but I read them when as came out, and there wasn't the intimidating weight of canon and wondering where to start. But I tried playing in it recently, and it just came across as stupid. Color-coded mages that all get along at meetings. I imagined the white-robes whispering behind their hands as they point at the black-robes, "Why did they have to invite THEM again? They double dip!" And a steel-based economy is downright stupid when you use steel to buy more steel. Longsword is what, 15 gold, weighs 5lbs? Melt it down and make 250 steel pieces. Buy more longswords. Repeat. We ended up selling a giant's +1 sword for something like 20,000 steel just for the raw material cost. After that, there was no bringing it back in line.

I beg to differ about material stuff. Have you ever emptied a kender's knapsack? ;)

Mr. Fishy filled a Kenders bag, bird nest w/bird and eggs, flying carpet sample, silver fork(were-bane), dent metal flask, lucky rabbit foot, rabbit w/3 feet, shiny whistle on a ichy string, a rock, a piece of glass, it had 90 items listed with new items added as Mr. Fishy found new things. Like the flying kenku feather, (fly once per day).

Mr. Fishy was a kender once long ago, beat a wizard half to death becuase it hurt the baby dragon. That was fun, poor bastard never saw an angery kender.

The thing you have to realize about kender is that they're a poor PC race UNLESS you go the Tasslehoff route, and give them some tragedy in their backstory. This lets you play a kender who, while still being the loveable little fearless klepto that is fun, actually has some degree of responsibility...at least enough to be a playable character that won't have the entire party plotting to kill him.

It's funny, every time I've played with someone playing a rogue/theif/etc, no matter what their race, they have stolen SOMETHING from SOMEONE in the group. Usually something more valuable than a kender takes, and ALWAYS with less innocent intent. But the response is to threaten the PC a bit, then forgive and forget. Nobody declares a holy jihad for gnomish/halfling/dwarven/elven/human genocide.

If a PC, Rogue or otherwise steals steals from my PC, I make sure in no uncertain terms to tell the Rogue and the Rogue's player that doing so isn't cool, and that if he does so again the group and I will likely ask the player to leave.

Player vs player don't fly in games I play in.

If a PC, Rogue or otherwise steals steals from my PC, I make sure in no uncertain terms to tell the Rogue and the Rogue's player that doing so isn't cool, and that if he does so again the group and I will likely ask the player to leave.

Player vs player don't fly in games I play in.

How is it player vs player when the PC in question meant nothing by it?

This isn't some dirty backstabbing slimeball thieving rogue taking your stuff to sell to the highest bidder.

This is your friend who happens to be an innocent curious Kender.

Let me ask you this, did Caramon or Tika get angry with Tasselhoff when he pocketed things? A little irritated maybe, but he wasn't doing it for any bad reasons. Also lets not forget all the times things a Kender has pocketed have saved the parties butts. Happens every once in a while in my games (random dice rolls can be entertaining, and sometimes you can just say screw the dice and throw in a beneficial plot device without a roll)

EDIT: Also, the Kender in question may not even be a rogue. Depending on the Era he could be a Fighter, a Mystic, a Wizard, heck even a cleric of (insert good god)

'Borrowing' is simply a part of a Kender's nature. It's no worse for the Kender to 'borrow' than it is for your animal companion leapard to kill and eat a wild goat.

Innocent nature.

Mr. Fishy was a kender once long ago, beat a wizard half to death becuase it hurt the baby dragon. That was fun, poor bastard never saw an angery kender.

I would be afraid to see an angry kender!

How is it player vs player when the PC in question meant nothing by it?

This isn't some dirty backstabbing slimeball thieving rogue taking your stuff to sell to the highest bidder.

This is your friend who happens to be an innocent curious Kender.

KR, I think you're confusing the player with the character.

The character is a friendly little thief who legitimately (a) has no concept of personal property, (b) cannot grow to understand the idea of personal property, (c) never leaves his or her own things back home, (d) doesn't leave things on you alone, or leave them by the wayside. It's the character who "didn't mean anything by it."

The player has chosen to play a character who steals from his fellow party members. The PC's motivations are beside the point: it doesn't matter whether the character is a back-stabbing slimeball, or a kleptomaniac, or an innocent kender, or an elf who grabs your stuff because he's from a savage culture that believes it's their religious duty to steal from people outside the tribe.

The character's clever backstory doesn't matter. What matters is that the player has chosen to play a disruptive, thieving PC, and he will make sure that your wizard's magic wand has gone missing when you most need it.

That's how it's player vs. player.

Only setting my group plays in, and my only reason for getting back into gamming.

I think the key to remember is that kender aren't malevolent. They aren't trying to steal, they just have no sense of private property.

An entire race of retarded puppies is not any more fun to play with.

kyrt-ryder wrote:

How is it player vs player when the PC in question meant nothing by it?

This isn't some dirty backstabbing slimeball thieving rogue taking your stuff to sell to the highest bidder.

This is your friend who happens to be an innocent curious Kender.

KR, I think you're confusing the player with the character.

The character is a friendly little thief who legitimately (a) has no concept of personal property, (b) cannot grow to understand the idea of personal property, (c) never leaves his or her own things back home, (d) doesn't leave things on you alone, or leave them by the wayside. It's the character who "didn't mean anything by it."

The player has chosen to play a character who steals from his fellow party members. The PC's motivations are beside the point: it doesn't matter whether the character is a back-stabbing slimeball, or a kleptomaniac, or an innocent kender, or an elf who grabs your stuff because he's from a savage culture that believes it's their religious duty to steal from people outside the tribe.

The character's clever backstory doesn't matter. What matters is that the player has chosen to play a disruptive, thieving PC, and he will make sure that your wizard's magic wand has gone missing when you most need it.

That's how it's player vs. player.

For what it's worth, I've been in several parties with Kender, and I've never had a problem with what they do. It's funny, entertaining, and good natured.

I guess maybe I'm the odd man out in this case, but I've got no problem with Kenders doing what they do, in part because, hey, it's what they do.

On the other hand, a Kender tends to be a boon to a party, randomly finding stuff that proves useful and helpful when they dig into the pouch hoping for a miracle.

kyrt-ryder wrote:

I think the key to remember is that kender aren't malevolent. They aren't trying to steal, they just have no sense of private property.

An entire race of retarded puppies is not any more fun to play with.

Like I said in my reply to Chris, I enjoy playing with (and occasionally as) Kender. It's just a fun piece of the story, I don't get why it's such a big deal. Give and take you know?

I guess maybe I'm the odd man out in this case, but I've got no problem with Kenders doing what they do, in part because, hey, it's what they do.

They were created to do what they do, though. It's not like it's an immutable reality where if the dog poos on the carpet occasionally, oh well it's a dog what are you going to do? Kender are a fictional construct, specifically a fictional construct that is focused on stealing from everyone, annoying everyone, and being utterly immune to learning any better.

It can be possible to play an annoying character without annoying the players, but I've been RPing approximately as long as I've known how to read and I've yet to see it.

kyrt-ryder wrote:

I guess maybe I'm the odd man out in this case, but I've got no problem with Kenders doing what they do, in part because, hey, it's what they do.

They were created to do what they do, though. It's not like it's an immutable reality where if the dog poos on the carpet occasionally, oh well it's a dog what are you going to do? Kender are a fictional construct, specifically a fictional construct that is focused on stealing from everyone, annoying everyone, and being utterly immune to learning any better.

It can be possible to play an annoying character without annoying the players, but I've been RPing approximately as long as I've known how to read and I've yet to see it.

Well put.

Only setting my group plays in, and my only reason for getting back into gamming.

That is a strong endorsement!

One of the best things about the DRAGONLANCE movie is that they keep Tasselhoff relatively low-key, so he's not as annoying as in the books. Plus in the battles he's a homicidal little maniac. They seemed to logically infer that since kenders have no sense of fear, they'd be quite dangerous in battle, and that comes across quite well.

The biggest disappointment of the movie:

The biggest disappointment of the movie:

** spoiler omitted **

Spoiler:

no slightly weird relationship between Raistlin and the gully dwaves.

It was weird enough for my wife (who has never read the books)!

Peace,

tfad

If a PC, Rogue or otherwise steals steals from my PC, I make sure in no uncertain terms to tell the Rogue and the Rogue's player that doing so isn't cool, and that if he does so again the group and I will likely ask the player to leave.

Player vs player don't fly in games I play in.

We have a halfling rogue in our not-DL campaign who doesn't steal directly from the party but makes sure he "searches first" every time and convinces the DM he can pocket anything without being noticed. It's a little annoying in a co-op game but I have decided just to ignore him. If he's happy screwing over the party and then happy to have the party protect him from death during combat, well, what really can you do?

S.

What really can you do?

Lodestone. Or medallion of thought projection. Go ahead, my diminutive friend. Pick that pocket.

We have a halfling rogue in our not-DL campaign who doesn't steal directly from the party but makes sure he "searches first" every time and convinces the DM he can pocket anything without being noticed. It's a little annoying in a co-op game but I have decided just to ignore him. If he's happy screwing over the party and then happy to have the party protect him from death during combat, well, what really can you do?

Politely, and then less politely, request that people make characters who are team players. This is always going to be a group-by-group thing, but a whole race of non-team-players is not good for a team game.

Regarding kender, I just recently read a post on another site (blog, likely) that had a rather humorous (at least, to me) rant on kender, and how they're sociopaths, etc.

It pointed out several issues the author took with various defenses of kender traits, and what not.

Now, I can't find it.

Is anyone familiar with this, and might have a link to point me towards it?

I have played in two DL campaigns. The first was under 2E rules with a DM who was enthralled with the book du jour. We started out a year or so after the War of the Lance and were on a quest to find a PC's lost family member. When the players declined to play Fifth Age, we were asked if we wanted to play a Ravenloft campaign after the DM bought the boxed set and then the Soth/Ravenloft module. We declined and mysteriously found our DL group in Soth's castle! We were like 4th-5th level! The only survivor was the kender thief, played by the DM's best friend. Horrible. My Irda mage was killed by a banshee in 1 round! A dwarf cleric went toe-to-toe with a death knight until he dropped in the fifth round. A human paladin was ambushed by a mimic. The death toll was horrible.

When 3E came out, I ran a campaign using the DLCS. I kept it simple and small scale, losing a lot of the overpowered stuff like the Knights of Solamnia PrC's. The premise was two siblings who were tutored by Elistan during the time spent in Thorbardin, becoming a paladin and a cleric. Joining with some childhood friends and new allies, the party was sent to help clean-up the draconian forces. Eventually, they got elected to the leadership of the town they were using as a base and had to deal with some over-zealous Knights of Solamnia.

The setting is full of good ideas, but a lot of them were statted out horribly. I like the feel of the Chronicles and Legends, so you will have to do a little work. More so than most settings, DL is about personal relationships and motivations. You could just go with the novels for the price of a library card.

As for kender, I find them annoying even as characters in the novels. There is always someone in the party who thinks they would be great fun to play a kender and that character becomes a constant annoyance at best or a major disruption at worst. If it weren't DM fiat in the first example, another party mage would have burned the kender into crispy bits. In the second, I had a kender thief for about 3 sessions before the party tired of his antics and left him tied to a tree while they travelled through the mountains. They even cut a rope bridge so he couldn't follow them. The player rolled a new, less annoying character.

www.dlnexus.com is probably the best website for info on the setting.

As I mentioned in another thread, I've never played in Krynn. I only got the Dragonlance gaming material to enhance my understanding of the novels. But in the novels, the kender are invaluable for relief humor, and in general, for saving the books from being too serious and depressing. When you say...

As for kender, I find them annoying even as characters in the novels.

...that would be fine, except that you don't explain WHY they're annoying in the novels. Instead, you go on to say why kender are annoying in a GAME. Sure, I wouldn't want to put up with a kender myself, but READING about one can be great fun.

...I had a kender thief for about 3 sessions before the party tired of his antics and left him tied to a tree while they travelled through the mountains. They even cut a rope bridge so he couldn't follow them. The player rolled a new, less annoying character.

Okay, so that's what happened in the GAME. But if that scene had happened in a NOVEL, the kender would have eventually freed himself of the tree like an escape artist, found some replacement for the rope bridge, rejoined his companions, and said "It was very thoughtful of you to keep me from getting into trouble like that, but I think you must have gotten distracted with something else and forgotten me in the tree. Oh, and did you know that the bridge is down? You're so lucky I managed to catch up to you; you'd be lost without me."

And I would read this and chuckle, even as the other characters would reach out to strangle him.

The campaign setting arrived last week. I gave it a semi-thorough read through. It is, indeed, quite the epic setting in terms of power level. I personally love the kleptomaniacal kender and think they are a very cool halfling variant.

The campaign setting arrived last week. I gave it a semi-thorough read through. It is, indeed, quite the epic setting in terms of power level. I personally love the kleptomaniacal kender and think they are a very cool halfling variant.

I thought the "Mystic" class in that book was kind of neat. I nearly used it once.

As I mentioned in another thread, I've never played in Krynn. I only got the Dragonlance gaming material to enhance my understanding of the novels. But in the novels, the kender are invaluable for relief humor, and in general, for saving the books from being too serious and depressing. When you say...

swank76 wrote:

As for kender, I find them annoying even as characters in the novels.

...that would be fine, except that you don't explain WHY they're annoying in the novels. Instead, you go on to say why kender are annoying in a GAME. Sure, I wouldn't want to put up with a kender myself, but READING about one can be great fun.

swank76 wrote:

...I had a kender thief for about 3 sessions before the party tired of his antics and left him tied to a tree while they travelled through the mountains. They even cut a rope bridge so he couldn't follow them. The player rolled a new, less annoying character.

Okay, so that's what happened in the GAME. But if that scene had happened in a NOVEL, the kender would have eventually freed himself of the tree like an escape artist, found some replacement for the rope bridge, rejoined his companions, and said "It was very thoughtful of you to keep me from getting into trouble like that, but I think you must have gotten distracted with something else and forgotten me in the tree. Oh, and did you know that the bridge is down? You're so lucky I managed to catch up to you; you'd be lost without me."

And I would read this and chuckle, even as the other characters would reach out to strangle him.

Fair enough. I dislike reading about kender because they all come across as being the same character. Granted, there is something to be said for stereotypes. Flint is a "typical" dwarf who is gruff but has a heart of gold. Fine, but he has enough quirks to be different than another dwarf. But kender all behave nearly identically. I find it to be terrible characterization. Yes, Weiss and Hickman did it first but after that, noone broke any new ground.

I dislike reading about kender because they all come across as being the same character. Granted, there is something to be said for stereotypes. Flint is a "typical" dwarf who is gruff but has a heart of gold. Fine, but he has enough quirks to be different than another dwarf. But kender all behave nearly identically. I find it to be terrible characterization. Yes, Weiss and Hickman did it first but after that, noone broke any new ground.

That's interesting.

Personally, I have the opposite opinion. When an author says "I'm going to bring out a whole new aspect of this character or idea," I often get the impression that the author can't HELP but do so. Authors are often driven by their own personalities to write things their own way. Aping another author is often more difficult than doing your own thing.

Look at the gully dwarves. I thought Weis and Hickman's gully dwarves were fun to read about, again for the humor value. Other authors - Dan Parkinson in particular - just didn't have the charm to write them properly. Imitating Weis and Hickman is a darn tough job to attempt.

Anyway, thanks for clarifying!

swank76 wrote:

I dislike reading about kender because they all come across as being the same character. Granted, there is something to be said for stereotypes. Flint is a "typical" dwarf who is gruff but has a heart of gold. Fine, but he has enough quirks to be different than another dwarf. But kender all behave nearly identically. I find it to be terrible characterization. Yes, Weiss and Hickman did it first but after that, noone broke any new ground.

That's interesting.

Personally, I have the opposite opinion. When an author says "I'm going to bring out a whole new aspect of this character or idea," I often get the impression that the author can't HELP but do so. Authors are often driven by their own personalities to write things their own way. Aping another author is often more difficult than doing your own thing.

Look at the gully dwarves. I thought Weis and Hickman's gully dwarves were fun to read about, again for the humor value. Other authors - Dan Parkinson in particular - just didn't have the charm to write them properly. Imitating Weis and Hickman is a darn tough job to attempt.

Anyway, thanks for clarifying!

I think there is a middle ground between reinventing an archetype and flogging a dead horse. Oddly, I found the gully dwarves in the original trilogy to be charming and amusing. I just get the feeling that kender are "clown shoes"- trying wayyyyyyyy to hard to be amusing.

Eh. It's just an opinion. Chocolate ice cream vs vanilla ice cream and all that.

::raises hand::

I hate Kender too. Because there's nothing even remotely funny or novel about some brain-dead idiot man-child turning around, grasping his lower lip and moronically stammering "OOPS!" with huge puppy eyes as a wave of acid comes washing over your entire party. Why not? Because the jackass will do it again in another three minutes given half a chance, knowing full well that it's another potentially deadly trap... screw it, I'm impulsive, it says so in the book! Culpability be damned! Oh hey! My friend's spellbook, he doesn't need that right now, right?

The worst part for me is that not only are they truly, irrevocably unlikeable, but the same fluff (the stuff that says they're nothing more than a band of impulsive Pikeys) goes on to describe them as almost immune to the dire consequences of their own self-righteous screw-ups, and apparently they're loved by all but the most callous, cold-hearted villains the world has ever known, ever (or maybe just anyone who values their privacy/property). The sight of a sad Kender is enough to move most people to tears? Well why exactly is the Kender sad? I assure you: t's not because he just killed his whole party over a stupid, it's because he doesn't have anyone to annoy anymore.

I pose a challenge most sincere to any and all who claim Kender are actually worth their salt: Run Tomb of Horrors (3.5 - as it is manageable), allow a Kender into your party. The rest should be self-explanatory.

Sheboygen,

There are people who play D&D as a game of tactical challenges. They want pretty competent characters, and they don't mess around on missions. I've likened them to "SWAT teams" or Marine squads. "Tomb of Horrors" fits this kind of play.

DragonLance never did. If you want efficient characters, you don't want a kender on your team, but then, you probably don't want Tika Waylin or Raistlin Majere, either.

Complement this with what I posted upthread about player-vs.-player.

That is why I always preferred Taladas over Ansalon, especially when you consider the League of Minotaurs (roman theme), marak kender (suspicious and paranoid), death gnomes, barbarian elf tribes, dwarfs afraid of going under the earth, the origin of draconians, sea of fire, sea of glass, old aurim, baltch (island besieged by the ocean), etc. It goes against alot of the stereotypes offered by the original books, and allowed more opportunities to add your own content.

If you have the otherlands supplement, there is even a undersea kingdom for elves.

I ran a long ongoing campaign using GURPS in Taladas, including charting the three moons and the affect on magic. I am starting a campaign again using 4E.

Sheboygan, I agree with you.

Kender protagonists work better in fiction than in gaming, for exactly the reasons you suggest.

As do ninja loners who hate working in teams and have all the tools necessary to accomplish missions on their own.

For a long time after those novels came out I wanted the heads of the authors on a plate. Somehow, in a magical overnight transformation, every single halfling PC in the entire universe became a kender. It made sitting at a game table difficult for a while.