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?

 

[Oofta]

No, I don't have fun responding to people's ideas and assertions, only to get gaslit and told I'm insane and making things up. It is vastly frustrating.



The fact that you seem unable to tell the difference between the usage of Beholders in the game and the usage of halflings in the game really confusing to me. Beholders do things. Beholders have multiple additional versions of themselves. Beholders have an entire section devoted to them in the Spelljammer book, and they have been used as iconagraphy for the DnD brand.

When was the last time a stylized halfling was put on the cover of a DnD brand product or used to promote a live stream?

And again, if your only argument is "halflings exist in DnD, so we shouldn't remove them because they exist" then you are arguing to keep EVERYTHING in DnD, and that is a bad argument because there is a lot of crap in DnD we don't need to keep.



Actually, there is a committee that decides what is and isn't allowed to be part of DnD, they are called "Wizards of the Coast".

But sure, much like the dreaded Duck Bunny, the famous Spider Horse and the terrifying Blindheim halflings are a thing that exists and were made up for a fantasy world. However, just because they were made up for a story, doesn't mean we need to keep them.

Yep, WOTC decides what stays in D&D. Not you. My point was that there is no consistency to fantasy, D&D has echoed and amplified many of Tolkien's ideas while also adding in many of their own.

Take elves and dwarves. Before Tolkien elves were largely fey tricksters, literal small folk similar to leprechauns and fairies. Dwarves were in many ways similar, one main source for Tolkien was Norse mythology where the difference between elves and dwarves are fuzzy at best.

So yes, Tolkien added orcs (goblins were also trickster fey) and hobbits as extensions of a wide variety of folklore. But he also redefined elves and dwarves into the image we have today before that one of the most well known elves was Puck from a Midsummer's Night's dream.

So I think it's pointless to ignore half a century of lore. If they don't do anything for you don't include them in campaigns you're run and don't play them. I like having a race that are not the movers and shakers of the world.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Part of the reason for that is that so much fantasy written since their day has been more or less derivative of one or both of them; so might as well go straight to the original rather than a derivation...and in the case of Tolkein, to the tales and myths he based his own works on.

It is only as derivative of Tolkien and Howard as Tolkien and Howard were derivative of their predecessors. You might as well go read Gilgamesh, Beowulf, and the Nordic Sagas if you want to make a claim to reading the "originals"

Tolkien and Howard weren't super special insightful writers who wrote something completely original.

It seems odd to suggest D&D should be more like WoW given that WoW seems to be very much derived from D&D.

Why is that odd? WoW took aspects of DnD and made them popular, so why would it not make sense for DnD to look at the popular things in WoW and see if they work for DnD?

It is certainly no stranger than saying DnD should be more like Tolkien.

And, more importantly, much more original in their work than are many fantasy authors since. Note that this is not in any way intended as a slight against latter-day fantasy authors, but more as a pointing-out of how they are building their works on the same foundations as does D&D: a few highly-influential fantasy authors from the mid 20th century.

Now, a very good case can be made that there's some other pre-1974 fantasy authors who could be - and maybe should be - just as influential; but that's a whole other discussion for another time.

Further, anything written since about 1978 may well have D&D itself as an influence; which just makes the whole thing self-referential if D&D is then supposed to allow itself to be influenced in return.

Except it is actually entirely a slight against latter-day fantasy authors. You are trying to state that nothing written since 1974 is anything more than a derivation of later works, while at the same time ignoring that everything ever written builds and expands on earlier work. Meaning that all those "original" works were just derivative of their predecessors.

And, shockingly, many people writing today aren't pulling from Tolkien or Howard, but pulling from the same sources as Tolkien and Howard. Or, different sources. I certainly haven't seen a lot of egyptian mythology referenced in Tolkien or Howard, or much Journey to the West, or the Vedic texts. Yet I've read a lot of fantasy influenced by those things.

It is just pure elitism to claim that Tolkien and Howard were the high-water mark and no one has written any fantasy worth talking about since them.

 

[Chaosmancer]

I think we should keep everything in D&D, so people can pick and choose what they want for their game. "Crap we don't need" is exceedingly subjective and personal, not the objective truth you are intimating.

Yeah, no. There is a lot of chaff from DnD's history. It needs to be expelled, not weigh the game down.

There can be discussions about how to determine that, but we can accept it to be true and then discuss what needs to be removed without stating that nothing should ever be removed.

 

[James Gasik]

And, again, like I said waaaaaay upthread, if we're going to start excising unpopular races, there's a whole slew of ones less accessible and popular than Halflings and Gnomes. I mean, what about H̶a̶l̶f̶-Orcs?

And let's not forget that, at various times, H̶a̶l̶f̶-Orcs and Gnomes were excised from the PHB, only to be brought back an edition later. If you did kick Halflings out, I've no doubt there'd again be cries of dismay about how "D&D isn't D&D anymore!".

 

[Chaosmancer]

Yep, WOTC decides what stays in D&D. Not you. My point was that there is no consistency to fantasy, D&D has echoed and amplified many of Tolkien's ideas while also adding in many of their own.

Take elves and dwarves. Before Tolkien elves were largely fey tricksters, literal small folk similar to leprechauns and fairies. Dwarves were in many ways similar, one main source for Tolkien was Norse mythology where the difference between elves and dwarves are fuzzy at best.

So yes, Tolkien added orcs (goblins were also trickster fey) and hobbits as extensions of a wide variety of folklore. But he also redefined elves and dwarves into the image we have today before that one of the most well known elves was Puck from a Midsummer's Night's dream.

So I think it's pointless to ignore half a century of lore. If they don't do anything for you don't include them in campaigns you're run and don't play them. I like having a race that are not the movers and shakers of the world.

I'm not trying to ignore a half a century of lore. I'm trying to include two to three decades of lore that people keep trying to ignore because it isn't the right lore. I'm trying to expand lore instead of letting it stagnate.

And sure, the elves were fey tricksters.... in parts of europe. But Tolkien took the Alfair which were NOT fey tricksters. He didn't invent elves, he highlighted a different version of them. And lo and behold, DnD elves aren't even Tolkien elves. Not even close.

No, dwarves I'd give to Tolkien, he seems to have locked them in pretty sturdily. But, you know, a lot of people would like to do a bit more with dwarves than has traditionally be done.


Remember, I have not advocated for DnD to delete halflings. I've argued they should be updated and modernized. Because you might like a race of people that don't effect the world, but the rest of us would like them to matter a bit more.

 

[Chaosmancer]

And, again, like I said waaaaaay upthread, if we're going to start excising unpopular races, there's a whole slew of ones less accessible and popular than Halflings and Gnomes. I mean, what about H̶a̶l̶f̶-Orcs?

And let's not forget that, at various times, H̶a̶l̶f̶-Orcs and Gnomes were excised from the PHB, only to be brought back an edition later. If you did kick Halflings out, I've no doubt there'd again be cries of dismay about how "D&D isn't D&D anymore!".

And, notably, One DnD is removing half-orcs and making them just Orcs. Which is something I did years ago and has worked really well.

And updating a race doesn't mean it needs to be removed.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Yeah, no. There is a lot of chaff from DnD's history. It needs to be expelled, not weigh the game down.

There can be discussions about how to determine that, but we can accept it to be true and then discuss what needs to be removed without stating that nothing should ever be removed.

Short of explicit anti-inclusiveness (IRL) concerns, I don't see any aspects of the game we should all just accept need to be jettisoned. And what counts in that category can in some cases be debated.

 

[Lanefan]

The fact that you seem unable to tell the difference between the usage of Beholders in the game and the usage of halflings in the game really confusing to me. Beholders do things. Beholders have multiple additional versions of themselves. Beholders have an entire section devoted to them in the Spelljammer book, and they have been used as iconagraphy for the DnD brand.

And Beholders find Halflings to be very tasty indeed, if properly seasoned of course.

Halflings feature prominently on the covers of many a Beholder cookbook.

Actually, there is a committee that decides what is and isn't allowed to be part of DnD, they are called "Wizards of the Coast".

And a bajillion subcommittees, each one consisting of the DM (and, sometimes, players) at any given table; all of whom are independent of the uber-committee at WotC.

 

[Lanefan]

It is only as derivative of Tolkien and Howard as Tolkien and Howard were derivative of their predecessors. You might as well go read Gilgamesh, Beowulf, and the Nordic Sagas if you want to make a claim to reading the "originals"

Tolkien and Howard weren't super special insightful writers who wrote something completely original.

Tolkein was insightful enough to coalesce his various sources into something big enough to become almost its own mythos, which is no small accomplishment.

Why is that odd? WoW took aspects of DnD and made them popular, so why would it not make sense for DnD to look at the popular things in WoW and see if they work for DnD?

It is certainly no stranger than saying DnD should be more like Tolkien.

You're missing my point, I think.

Tolkein cannot possibly have been influenced by D&D, if for no other reason than he died before the game was invented. The influence only goes one way.

WoW, however, exists side-along with D&D; and if each is allowed to influence the other to any great extent it just becomes a self-referential loop. WoW drew heavily from D&D, thus D&D IMO should be very careful in drawing from WoW.

Except it is actually entirely a slight against latter-day fantasy authors. You are trying to state that nothing written since 1974 is anything more than a derivation of later works, while at the same time ignoring that everything ever written builds and expands on earlier work. Meaning that all those "original" works were just derivative of their predecessors.

Anything written since 1974 could be (not necessarily is, but could be) derivative of and-or influenced by D&D*, and therefore D&D using these works as influences risks becoming self-referential, even if unintentionally.

* - never mind there's some books out there which are openly fore-worded as being novelizations of the author's D&D campaign(s)!

And, shockingly, many people writing today aren't pulling from Tolkien or Howard, but pulling from the same sources as Tolkien and Howard. Or, different sources. I certainly haven't seen a lot of egyptian mythology referenced in Tolkien or Howard, or much Journey to the West, or the Vedic texts. Yet I've read a lot of fantasy influenced by those things.

It is just pure elitism to claim that Tolkien and Howard were the high-water mark and no one has written any fantasy worth talking about since them.

Tolkein was a high-water mark. There's been others, obviously, some of which are very recent indeed; but in most cases we can't know how much influence those recent ones took from D&D and thus how much influence they can reasonably be expected to provide in return.

 

[Lanefan]

Yeah, no. There is a lot of chaff from DnD's history. It needs to be expelled, not weigh the game down.

Disagree. Sure there's chaff, but whether you happen to like it or not it's still part of the game's history and has to be accepted as such.

Denial of history - bad though that history may be - is never the answer in any realm.

There can be discussions about how to determine that, but we can accept it to be true and then discuss what needs to be removed without stating that nothing should ever be removed.

And if not everyone agrees with your blanket statement (bolded), then what?