RPG Evolution: The Trouble with Halflings

Over the decades I've developed my campaign world to match the archetypes my players wanted to play. In all those years, nobody's ever played a halfling.

Picture courtesy of Pixabay.​

So What's the Problem?​

Halflings, derived from hobbits, have been a curious nod to Tolkien's influence on fantasy. While dwarves and elves have deep mythological roots, hobbits are more modern inventions. And their inclusion was very much a response to the adventurous life that the agrarian homebodies considered an aberration. In short, most hobbits didn't want to be adventurers, and Bilbo, Frodo, and the others were forever changed by their experiences, such that it was difficult for them to reintegrate when they returned home. You don't hear much about elves and dwarves having difficulty returning home after being adventurers, and for good reason. Tolkien was making a point about the human condition and the nature of war by using hobbits as proxies.

As a literary construct, hobbits serve a specific purpose. In The Hobbit, they are proxies for children. In The Lord of the Rings, they are proxies for farmers and other folk who were thrust into the industrialized nightmare of mass warfare. In both cases, hobbits were a positioned in contrast to the violent lifestyle of adventurers who live and die by the sword.

Which is at least in part why they're challenging to integrate into a campaign world. And yet, we have strong hobbit archetypes in Dungeons & Dragons, thanks to Dragonlance.

Kender. Kender Are the Problem​

I did know one player who loved to play kender. We never played together in a campaign, at least in part because kender are an integral part of the Dragonlance setting and we weren't playing in Dragonlance. But he would play a kender in every game he played, including in massive multiplayers like Ultima Online. And he was eye-rollingly aggravating, as he loved "borrowing" things from everyone (a trait established by Tasselhoff Burrfoot).

Part of the issue with kender is that they aren't thieves, per se, but have a child-like curiosity that causes them to "borrow" things without understanding that borrowing said things without permission is tantamount to stealing in most cultures. In essence, it results in a character who steals but doesn't admit to stealing, which can be problematic for inter-party harmony. Worse, kender have a very broad idea of what to "borrow" (which is not limited to just valuables) and have always been positioned as being offended by accusations of thievery. It sets up a scenario where either the party is very tolerant of the kender or conflict ensues. This aspect of kender has been significantly minimized in the latest draft for Unearthed Arcana.

Big Heads, Little Bodies​

The latest incarnation of halflings brings them back to the fun-loving roots. Their appearance is decidedly not "little children" or "overweight short people." Rather, they appear more like political cartoons of eras past, where exaggerated features were used as caricatures, adding further to their comical qualities. But this doesn't solve the outstanding problem that, for a game that is often about conflict, the original prototypes for halflings avoided it. They were heroes precisely because they were thrust into difficult situations and had to rise to the challenge. That requires significant work in a campaign to encourage a player to play a halfling character who would rather just stay home.

There's also the simple matter of integrating halflings into societies where they aren't necessarily living apart. Presumably, most human campaigns have farmers; dwarves and elves occupy less civilized niches, where halflings are a working class who lives right alongside the rest of humanity in plain sight. Figuring out how to accommodate them matters a lot. Do humans just treat them like children? Would halflings want to be anywhere near a larger humanoids' dwellings as a result? Or are halflings given mythical status like fey? Or are they more like inveterate pranksters and tricksters, treating them more like gnomes? And if halflings are more like gnomes, then why have gnomes?

There are opportunities to integrate halflings into a world, but they aren't quite so easy to plop down into a setting as dwarves and elves. I still haven't quite figured out how to make them work in my campaign that doesn't feel like a one-off rather than a separate species. But I did finally find a space for gnomes, which I'll discuss in another article.

Your Turn: How have you integrated halflings into your campaign world?

 

[Chaosmancer]

You have small moments of goodness and triumph, and it makes fighting the darkness more satisfying. And halflings are, by definition, small moments of good and triumph.

Not because I feel like re-engaging with you Faolyn, but because I want to make it clear I'm not just reading Gammanoodler, but everyone else as well. Here is again, the same problem.

"halflings are, by definition, small moments of good and triumph." What does that make the adventurers? Think about the statement and take it literally for a moment. "Halflings are the light of good in a dark world". Which means to illustrate that, you aren't going to show a dwarven character being good and kind, or an elf, or a human, because those races are not definitionally moments of good and triumph.

I honestly wonder how many people have forgotten what the narrative point of phrases like "glimmers of light in the darkness" means. It didn't mean that halflings were the good people who made the darkness bearable. It was meant to apply to all good, common folk doing good works in their small ways. Hobbits were literally supposed to represent the common everyday englishman, not be avatars for good throughout the world.

I honestly feel like you cheapen the idea of small acts of good in a dark world, by shoving them into a race and saying "these people do that all the time, that's their entire point!" The powerful thing about those small acts is that they come from unexpected places, they are unusual because the other people in the same situation don't do that. And having halflings ALWAYS do it, ruins the entire message.

 

[Irlo]

"halflings are, by definition, small moments of good and triumph." What does that make the adventurers? Think about the statement and take it literally for a moment. "Halflings are the light of good in a dark world". Which means to illustrate that, you aren't going to show a dwarven character being good and kind, or an elf, or a human, because those races are not definitionally moments of good and triumph.

I honestly wonder how many people have forgotten what the narrative point of phrases like "glimmers of light in the darkness" means. It didn't mean that halflings were the good people who made the darkness bearable. It was meant to apply to all good, common folk doing good works in their small ways. Hobbits were literally supposed to represent the common everyday englishman, not be avatars for good throughout the world.

I honestly feel like you cheapen the idea of small acts of good in a dark world, by shoving them into a race and saying "these people do that all the time, that's their entire point!" The powerful thing about those small acts is that they come from unexpected places, they are unusual because the other people in the same situation don't do that. And having halflings ALWAYS do it, ruins the entire message.

Or, one could not take it literally and not conclude that halflings are celestial avatars and the exclusive and source of small moments of good and triumph all the time and without exception. I don't understand what leads you there. That's okay, I guess. After so many pages in this thread, I'm pretty sure I won't get it.

What does it make the adventurers? Maybe they're bombastic epic sweeping moments of good and triumph. Maybe they're scoundrels scraping by on whatever they can drag out of the tombs in the hills. Or anything else the players want them to be?

 

[Lanefan]

It simplifies things. In Ye Olden Days, if you had a weapon that did extra damage to "dragons," you had to actually figure out what counts as a dragon. Are wyverns or hydras dragons? Chimeras have a dragon head--does that count? Probably not, but some tables may say otherwise. In 2e, charm person affected dryads but didn't say anything about satyrs.

Rulings, not rules.

At one table a wyvern might count as a Dragon, at another not so. Ditto charm vs a satyr. As long as each DM is consistent and sticks to their own established precedent within a campaign, all is good.

So, for things like that, creature types are great.

Until-unless there's disagreement with the categorizations, as in what prompted this thread.

 

[Lanefan]

"halflings are, by definition, small moments of good and triumph." What does that make the adventurers?

In my experience? They're ongoing and variable-sized moments of chaos and anarchy.

Think about the statement and take it literally for a moment. "Halflings are the light of good in a dark world". Which means to illustrate that, you aren't going to show a dwarven character being good and kind, or an elf, or a human, because those races are not definitionally moments of good and triumph.

With them, it's just some individuals. With Hobbits, it's more broad-based. Simple.

I honestly wonder how many people have forgotten what the narrative point of phrases like "glimmers of light in the darkness" means. It didn't mean that halflings were the good people who made the darkness bearable.

But it could, should one choose to read it that way.

It was meant to apply to all good, common folk doing good works in their small ways. Hobbits were literally supposed to represent the common everyday englishman, not be avatars for good throughout the world.

I honestly feel like you cheapen the idea of small acts of good in a dark world, by shoving them into a race and saying "these people do that all the time, that's their entire point!" The powerful thing about those small acts is that they come from unexpected places, they are unusual because the other people in the same situation don't do that. And having halflings ALWAYS do it, ruins the entire message.

Individuals of other species are the points of light. Hobbits are the background glow that ever so slightly keeps the darkness at bay.

 

[Mind of tempest]

In my experience? They're ongoing and variable-sized moments of chaos and anarchy.

then why do you defend them so much that would make them unpalatable?

But it could, should one choose to read it that way.

look I get the death of the author but this leads to my next point.

With them, it's just some individuals. With Hobbits, it's more broad-based. Simple.

Individuals of other species are the points of light. Hobbits are the background glow that ever so slightly keeps the darkness at bay.

so by you definition halflings are just better than other people, they are better at being good and we should all just be like them?

Or, one could not take it literally and not conclude that halflings are celestial avatars and the exclusive and source of small moments of good and triumph all the time and without exception. I don't understand what leads you there. That's okay, I guess. After so many pages in this thread, I'm pretty sure I won't get it.

a) this is dnd literal embodiment of good are an option.
b) then what are halflings gimmicks?

 

[Mind of tempest]

Why would they be hundreds of miles away? If there's a world-shaking event going on, it would be shaking their world as well. You think invading demons and armies of undead are just going to ignore halfling towns? At the very least, they'd want to defend their own settlements. And if halflings are believers in helping others, then they'd be supporting the war effort. Soldiers who are alive and fed because of halfling help are going to want to defend halfling homes.

why would they defend their homes they survive by hiding they would flee that is literally how they are meant to live, if they are not forced to flee they would be next to worthless as their food would be smashed as the point of demons and undead is they do not resupply on food thus their line can burn it all to the ground.

Plus, lots of them live in human cities. Which, you know, the BBEGs tend to want to destroy or conquor.

a) that is the most unrealistic thing about the halfling-human relationship the humans would drive them to extinction for food and resources.
b) they would flee and end up as refugees.

Because lots of people are able to think of ways to use them well. It literally took me five seconds to realize what part halflings could play in a major event of any size if they weren't front-line fighters. I'm sure you can spend five minutes coming up with ideas on your own. If you don't think they have any real importance, it's entirely because you have decided that.

that is a fair point but my counter is
c) can't do that without removing the basic idea of halflings beyond being on the side of good and being small and gnomes are that technically.
d) how much do you know about basic war logistics?
e) given that say FR can't seem to go six months without a near end of the world this would not be a stable situation supply lines would run out fast thus halflings would have mostly been pushed away.
f)I know exactly what idea based on and it sickens me at any attempt to rehabilitate it.

To quote a thing I've heard about Changeling: the Dreaming: they are the light which causes the shadows. You use them to show how dark the rest of the world is in comparison. And to quote Isaac Asimov on why he didn't like dystopias (or utopias): you can't make a symphony on just one note. And If you don't have anything good in a grim setting, then it's just dark edgy angsty boringness. As some people put it, a pizza cutter: all edge and no point. If everything sucks all the time, why play in it? And I say this as someone who likes running horror and likes Ravenloft, where you literally can't defeat the Dark Powers.

You have small moments of goodness and triumph, and it makes fighting the darkness more satisfying. And halflings are, by definition, small moments of good and triumph.

look your basic point on setting design I agree with but halflings are not better people than elves or dwarves why should they get to be the light? what makes them better than the rest of us? they are defined as being average and the average person is not good not evil but not good. so what makes them so deserving to be the great good light what is so good about them?

 

[Lanefan]

then why do you defend them so much that would make them unpalatable?

Defend what? Characters? All characters are ongoing moments of chaos and anarchy, not just hobbits.

so by you definition halflings are just better than other people, they are better at being good and we should all just be like them?

One can aspire so; and by no means are all individual Hobbits better than other people. It's more a national-average sort of thing - Hobbits trend good while Dwarves trend lawful, Elves trend chaotic, etc.

Hell, someone has to be the goodly species; and as people seem to think Hobbits need a defining aspect, maybe this is it.

 

[Lanefan]

why would they defend their homes they survive by hiding they would flee that is literally how they are meant to live, if they are not forced to flee they would be next to worthless as their food would be smashed as the point of demons and undead is they do not resupply on food thus their line can burn it all to the ground.

Fleeing would be an option but realistically they'd try defense first unless the foes were clearly overwhelming. And someone fighting on home turf nearly always has an advantage.

a) that is the most unrealistic thing about the halfling-human relationship the humans would drive them to extinction for food and resources.

This assumes there's enough Humans to need all those resources. A typical D&D setting (other than FR) just doesn't have that degree of Human population and there's generally assumed to be enough basic resources to go around; FR is overpopulated in some regions and yes, there your concerns are valid.

b) they would flee and end up as refugees.

Or end up as slaves, or serfs, etc. if it came to that, but I rather doubt it would.

 

[Mind of tempest]

Defend what? Characters? All characters are ongoing moments of chaos and anarchy, not just hobbits.

given that I spend most of my characters trying to avoid my parties killing each other I will believe you here.

One can aspire so; and by no means are all individual Hobbits better than other people. It's more a national-average sort of thing - Hobbits trend good while Dwarves trend lawful, Elves trend chaotic, etc.

Hell, someone has to be the goodly species; and as people seem to think Hobbits need a defining aspect, maybe this is it.

the problem with the goodly species is it defines what good is which is controversial, tables burn over what is good then you factor in how fast real-world groups would behave it is the dumbest idea I ever heard it would be a bad idea.
plus how are halfling more good than others they would more likely to be true neutral.

Fleeing would be an option but realistically they'd try defense first unless the foes were clearly overwhelming. And someone fighting on home turf nearly always has an advantage.

they are armies who do eat, sleep, resupply or need light why would they defend they are literally not built for it.

This assumes there's enough Humans to need all those resources. A typical D&D setting (other than FR) just doesn't have that degree of Human population and there's generally assumed to be enough basic resources to go around; FR is overpopulated in some regions and yes, there your concerns are valid.

Halflings are smaller weaker and live in the same environment it is not malice but the rules of nature and biology.

Or end up as slaves, or serfs, etc. if it came to that, but I rather doubt it would.

being eaten is also a possibility.

 

[Gammadoodler]

given that I spend most of my characters trying to avoid my parties killing each other I will believe you here.

the problem with the goodly species is it defines what good is which is controversial, tables burn over what is good then you factor in how fast real-world groups would behave it is the dumbest idea I ever heard it would be a bad idea.
plus how are halfling more good than others they would more likely to be true neutral.

they are armies who do eat, sleep, resupply or need light why would they defend they are literally not built for it.

Halflings are smaller weaker and live in the same environment it is not malice but the rules of nature and biology.


being eaten is also a possibility.

Motivations are internal to characters. You don't have to say "these are the good boys". You just describe what they do, which on average would be things you think are good. Players and other forces within the setting can interpret the motives however they like.

And reasonable people often disagree about how to "be good". Halfling can easily employ the "give a fish" brand of goodness on a grand scale, without ever "teaching how to fish" or vice versa. Such a disagreement can occur between factions in the setting or between PCs at the table without compromising either party's "goodness".

As far as what any race would "likely" be, that is defined between the rulebook and the DM. The rulebooks say what the designers' expectations are for them and the DM interprets how that fits in the setting they are using and adjusts as necessary. At the end of the day, it comes more down to the DMs personal set of values than anything else.

Halflings are smaller, not weaker. There is nothing implicit or explicit within the PHB that suggests they'd fight poorly and a fair amount within the PHP to suggest the contrary.

Edit: The funny thing is, the way you describe halflings is actually more similar to the PHB description for elves.