My answer assumes an Arisototelian definition of virtue. It is a golden middle in between two extremes, therefore you cannot have "too much" of a virtue. And also, a crucial aspect is that it involves a certain mindset and a specific kind of deployment: e.g. being honest in the right way, in the right situations, for the right reasons, toward the right persons, etc. — which really moves the core of the definition elsewhere (What's the right way? What are the right situations? Etc.), and I won't explain that here, but that shift alone is helpful for answering your question.
My answer also presupposes that virtue involves not just certain ways of acting, but even more importantly, it involves certain ways of thinking, dispositions, and perceptual filters.
So, taking your first example...
I'd start by saying that proper honesty doesn't mean "blindly spit out everything you think". And proper kindness doesn't mean "coddle everybody around you and don't hurt or bother anyone, ever".
Those would be extremely simplistic versions of honesty and kindness. Definitely not "virtuous" ones.
To me, proper honesty is a middle point between dishonesty/deception/deviousness, and... insensitivity/bluntness/mindless sincerity.
And proper kindness is a middle point between hostility/aggression/rudeness, and... passiveness/gullibility/people-pleasing.
I think of kindness and honesty as related to and intertwined with respect and assertiveness, too.
All this being said... Here is my answer:
If the pairs you listed are proper virtues, then there is no conflict at all.
(Side note, the notion that honesty and kindness conflict often pops up in the mind of unkind people)