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.

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.

the-land-of-the-hobbits-6314749_960_720.jpg

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?
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Michael Tresca

Michael Tresca

You'd think, but I was just involved in a "no artificers in my DnD because technology doesn't fit MY setting" discussion yesterday. Many people have a highly specific and unwavering vision of DnD are western european medieval arthurian depictions and nothing else will work for them (while ignoring the many things that would be in a medieval european setting like guns and clockwork and the things that wouldn't be nearly so common like massive galleons)

Not just Arthurian, oldschool Arthurian. There's plenty of sporadic bits of higher technology in The Once and Future King and Seven Deadly Sins
 

log in or register to remove this ad

While I have no idea what the D&D monster is, it's very clearly based on Buer, a demon and President of Hell and teacher of philosophy described in the real-world 16th century text, Pseudomonarchia Daemonun. So, blame Johann Weyer, the Dutch occultist, for the bad design, not WotC (that looks like the type of art put out in WotC D&D, not TSR D&D).

View attachment 265186
It's a Roving Mauler, published in the Tome of Magic in 2006. Based on the Buer as you said.
That entire section of the book was based on the Pseudomonarchia Daemonun. It's like they were trying to restart the satanic panic or something. Even if you don't fault the design per se it was at best a questionable business move.
 

You'd think, but I was just involved in a "no artificers in my DnD because technology doesn't fit MY setting" discussion yesterday. Many people have a highly specific and unwavering vision of DnD are western european medieval arthurian depictions and nothing else will work for them (while ignoring the many things that would be in a medieval european setting like guns and clockwork and the things that wouldn't be nearly so common like massive galleons)



Uh huh.

I'm sure that the people saying that DnD (the game with space aliens, massive robots, laser guns, medieval fantasy settings, far east fantasy settings, post-apocalyptic fantasy settings, gothic horror fantasy settings, dragons, giants, cthullu and psychic garbage monsters) is bigger than Tolkien are totally wrong, because things like sci-fi, gaslight, steampunk, and other mythologies are not "DnD"
Sure. D&d is mostly but not exclusively situated within a fairly narrow band of tropes.

Those that strictly adhere to settings within those bands aren't 100% wrong about D&D existing "iconically" within that band. Likewise, those that acknowledge that D&D and non-D&D content can exist iconically outside that narrow band are not 100% wrong either.

Iconic =/= monolithic
 
Last edited:

Lanefan

Victoria Rules
It is a lion's head surrounded by five legs. The only form of locomotion it would have is spinning like a wheel. This is inherently silly looking. Additionally, as it is just a lion's head, the main form of attack would be to bite someone, however, it cannot bite someone. Since it can only move in a wheel motion, it cannot approach someone with the lion's face, the only way to face someone would be to spin on a leg. Therefore it is incredibly difficult to imagine it biting anyone. Therefore its main form of attack must be to trample people with the lion's paws.
Last I checked, lions' paws have great big claws in them. Which means, depending how fast this thing can spin with its claws out, it might resemble a ten-inch-wide buzzsaw blade coming at you; and that's pretty damn cool!

Assuming it in fact uses its mouth(s) to eat, it would indeed need some means of lying down and standing back up again. But it's a Demon, meaning all so-called rules of anatomy go flying out the window; so who knows how it eats (absorption through skin?) and-or whether those mouths are just there for show?
All in all, it comes across as less dangerous than an actual lion, and something that could never actually exist,
Many D&D creatures could never actually exist, and that's part of the point of them. :)
 



Mecheon

Sacabambaspis
They got lucky. D&D hadn't had it's big spike in popularity yet and all the religious nuts were still distracted by being angry at Harry Potter so it flew by under the radar.
Eh, it was the 00s. Wouldn't have rung anything, and using Pseudomonarchia as a source for stuff had been done by video games for yonks before then. Heck knows I've taken down Stolas in Castlevania around the same time
 

Chaosmancer

Legend
Do I need to explain how a creature with jointed limbs work?

Considering my entire point is how those limbs can possibly move, I would say that would be a silly thing for you to do. You also seem to still think that comparing a neckless head to an arm made any sense what so ever.

So you made a poor judgement based on incomplete data. That was not smart of you.

So I judged the design.... by the design.... and that wasn't smart? Weird, since literally the only thing you said that changed anything was the fact that it has TWO head's without necks, something that the artwork doesn't convey. Which... does seem like it should be relatively important, don't you think? You'd imagine that showing the creature in a profile that allowed for that knowledge to exist visually would be an important thing.

You claimed it was weaker than a lion. It has abilities that make that not so.

Ah, I see.

Here is artwork of a Nemean Lion

1667212213090.png


It has immunity to physical damage, resistance to magic, at-will spellcasting, a divine roar, destroys non-magical armor and is a CR 30 creature.

Its design is far better, is that because of all the magical abilities I can't see? No. This thing just... looks like a lion. But if this thing was coming towards me, I'd be scared. Meanwhile if the "ravager" came towards me I'd either be laughing or wondering if someone drugged me.

And I know, I know, you are going to claim that I mentioned the Beholder's eye beams, so clearly I must be taking monster abilities into account, so I should take the Ravager's regeneration into account. But, you seem to have forgotten exactly WHY I took the beholder's eye beams into account.

1667212620613.png


Their eye beams ARE DEPICTED IN THE ARTWORK.

And this creature looks no stupider than, quite frankly, most traditional D&D monsters, like chimeras. You're just not used to it.

So, first of all, yes it does look stupider than a chimera. The majority of chimera ever depicted as threats have a body plan that can work. Multiple heads on long necks on the body isn't a that hard to concieve of as being useful or dangerous.

Secondly, if you were just going to say "no, the real reason is because you haven't been exposed to it enough to get used to it" then why even bother asking me why I thought it was a bad design? You clearly don't care what I think, because you haven't actually responded to an actual thing I brought up, except to look at the statblock and say "the design doesn't convey that it regenerates and it does deal damage" like that is some sort of checkmate.

You know the anatomy of a magical beast probably made by a Vestige to be a servitor? Do tell.

I have, you just haven't been listening. I mean, you do realize that saying "it's a magical creature" doesn't resolve any of the problems with its design, right? The point of the art is to convey information. If it had no ligaments and its joints had 360 degrees of movement, then they shouldn't look exactly like lion legs, with prominent ligaments clearly visible, and legs only capable of bending in one direction.

And it's not biologically asymmetric either. It actually displays perfect bilateral symmetry when seen from the front, and radial symmetry when seen from above.

Okay, are you just offended that I used the word symmetry? I've clearly explained why I used the phrasing I did. Twice. Are you actually going to address the fact that 99% of all creatures have only two eyes, making a prominently one-eyed creature which additionally has multiple eye tendrils, bizzarre and unnatural to conventional biology? Or do you want to just keep "well, actually" ing my use of a term to score cheap grammar points while ignoring the substance of my point?

Because at this point I have made three posts responding to your question, you have addressed essentially none of my points or even acknowledged the majority of them, and instead have taken to just telling me what I believe. And frankly, it feels like this is queing up to be a "see how bellligerent and argumentative he is" style ending where you just act disgusted with me for not rolling over and agreeing with you. When, again, you asked for my reasonings, and I gave them.
 

Chaosmancer

Legend
Last I checked, lions' paws have great big claws in them. Which means, depending how fast this thing can spin with its claws out, it might resemble a ten-inch-wide buzzsaw blade coming at you; and that's pretty damn cool!

And last I checked those claws are retractable because constantly slamming them into the ground would dull them. This is why despite dogs having larger claws, cat claws are the ones we worry about. Additionally, the point of a cat's claws are to act as hooks, grabbing the prey and holding on to it so they can kill it with their fangs.

And this thing likely isn't move that fast. The design of it would prevent that fairly easily do to how lion legs are designed to move.

Also, if I wanted a living buzzsaw that was barreling towards the players, I would design something far better than this, in fact, I know of a monster that is simply just a better version of this. The initial design looks almost as silly, but modern reinterpretations of it make for a far more terrifying foe.

Assuming it in fact uses its mouth(s) to eat, it would indeed need some means of lying down and standing back up again. But it's a Demon, meaning all so-called rules of anatomy go flying out the window; so who knows how it eats (absorption through skin?) and-or whether those mouths are just there for show?

The heads being just for show does not make the design better.

Many D&D creatures could never actually exist, and that's part of the point of them. :)

Except many of them COULD actually exist. Maybe not on Earth as we know it, but I did an entire aside on how Piercers actually make functional sense. Well designed monsters can make a lot of sense. And those specifically designed not to make sense (like the Gibbering Mouther) are absolutely still obvious in how they are terrifying.
 

doctorbadwolf

Heretic of The Seventh Circle
My point is that before Rings of Power came out this month, the most recent Middle Earth movie was from 2014.
And in spite of that mess, the trilogy is still a significant influence on young nerds online, 20 years later, and the books are still selling so well every book store has multiple options for purchasing it, and people keep making successful video games and TTRPGs based on the property.
 

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top