D&D 4E Call a kender a kender? What should 4E "halflings" be called?

[JohnSnow]

I think the film Willow shows that you can have knockoff halflings that are not precisely hobbits but not trite, either.

I voted halfling, simply for the legacy. Basically, that's in the PHB because it's what humans call them (like "dwarf" and "elf"). Like the other races, their own name for themselves is usually different, but I vary it from setting to setting.

However, I've always felt WotC should take a HARD look at the similarities between halflings and gnomes and just write a single race that shared characteristics of both. Clearly, not everyone likes hobbits, and in any case they're hard to justify outside of Middle-Earth. The Nelwyn in Willow are in many ways very hobbit-like, but they can learn magic, which makes them different. They can also grow beards, and some of them work in mines, though not, it seems, by preference. The latter three (magic-use, beards, miners) are very gnome-like qualities.

Similarly, the Warrow in Dennis McKiernan's Iron Tower looked more like 3e halflings (or kender) when they were young. They wore shoes and had long dark hair (and, in the artwork, topknots). When young, they were prone to wandering and remained quite athletic. However, as they got older (middle-aged), they tended to stay at home, and often developed potbellies. Since they tend to be rather flexible in presentation, McKiernan's Warrow make a pretty interesting model for D&D halflings.

Personally, I like halflings, and so my worlds are gnome free. My old DM liked gnomes, so he instead modeled his short race on them and ditched halflings. I know very few games that make extensive use of both. Consequently, isn't it time we just made them one race?

 

[billd91]

<snip>
First off, we don't have to assume they're wanderers. It's not by any means required of the race. Even if they are, you already came up with another alternative with no effort -- one which, incidentally, fits better into Races of the Wild and which doesn't share the same assumption of untrustworthiness (to "gyp," someone, as every American child knows, is to cheat them).


They didn't mix it up even a little bit and they narrowed in on a specific stereotype that, even today, alleges that real actual living people are, genetically or culturally, inclined to dishonesty and theft.

I suppose we're lucky that, during the writing of Races of Stone, no one said "hey, they have beards and love gold; how do you guys feel about dwarves wearing yamulkes?"

You make a very interesting point. I'll give you that. While the halfling gypsy thing has been an element strongly in 3E, there wasn't a clear link between being a thief and being a gypsy-type character. Sure, the halfling is mechanically well suited for being a rogue and has it as preferred class, but they at least took steps to divorce "rogue" from "thief" by broadening the idea into "general skill monkey".

I think putting the kleptomania in the pot, even if innocently done, is a step backward in sensitivity.
But then again, if they're pushing the water affinity, they may be angling for something a bit different from gypsy. I'm not sure it will succeed in shifting the impression, though.

 

[IanB]

To me the water thing is just a shout out to *another* D&D Gypsy analogue, the Rhenee from Greyhawk. I don't see it softening the problem at all really.

 

[KrazyHades]

Sorry Dustyboots, but I am new enough to the game that (even though I have of course read Tolkien) I do not think that "halfling" should mean portly, hairy-footed midget. Though it might drive the grognards crazy, I personally think that in DnD the Tolkienesque hobbit seems very silly, existing almost solely as a comical race. In fact, even in the LotR, the Hobbits are famous for being very silly and confused over their priorities ("Oh, a balrog's coming, huh? Well, we can start strolling in the opposite direction just after we finish our third lunch" sort of thing, though less extreme.)

Honestly, though Tolkien has immense value, his works should not be the only source of material for DnD. I have no problem with the game moving beyond his writings, though I am well aware that a number of people detest this concept.

For me, a halfing is a lucky, clan-oriented nomad, with an innate capacity for stealth and a too-healthy curiosity. I like the believable kenders much more than the comical hobbits.

 

[pawsplay]

Kenders are believable and halflings are comical?

 

[Scarbonac]

Kenders are believable and halflings are comical?

Because a stable life, raising a family, farming and dying in your sleep at an advanced age is funny and taunting things that can eat you and your friends, picking the pockets of your closest comrades and having no place to call home is sensible?

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

You make a very interesting point. I'll give you that. While the halfling gypsy thing has been an element strongly in 3E, there wasn't a clear link between being a thief and being a gypsy-type character. Sure, the halfling is mechanically well suited for being a rogue and has it as preferred class, but they at least took steps to divorce "rogue" from "thief" by broadening the idea into "general skill monkey".

Well, it's notable that they didn't make the wizard race or the fighter race or even the bard race the gypsies. To me, that's where the problem occurs. Individually, each part is OK -- not great, but OK -- but the combo is where it stops looking like an oops to me.

I think putting the kleptomania in the pot, even if innocently done, is a step backward in sensitivity.
But then again, if they're pushing the water affinity, they may be angling for something a bit different from gypsy. I'm not sure it will succeed in shifting the impression, though.

I think the water thing -- and, ironically, the kender thing -- is better than the gypsy thing. My personal preference are for hobbits, but I get that most people don't seem to like that nowadays. (And, of course, the legal issues.)

I've run an all-hobbit campaign and gnomes are all over my current games. Like a lot of people, I don't use both races at the same time, although both exist in Praemal and my gnome illusionist is intent on reuniting the two races (Monte explicitly made them cousins in his homebrew).

 

[Spatula]

Honestly, though Tolkien has immense value, his works should not be the only source of material for DnD.

Well, they aren't. Tolkien is just one of many influences, but there are numerous elements of D&D that came straight out of the Hobbit & LotR - and the old halflings were one of them. For that matter, pretty much all the 1E races save the gnome were either taken from Tolkien wholesale or had a major Tolkienesque influence. And there's nothing wrong with that - aside from the super-elves.

 

[Hairfoot]

Humans bastardized their name to elfling, and eventually to Hafling.

"Elfling" would have been appropriate from 3E onward. Hobbit-halflings were small humans, kender halflings are small elves. They should have formalised the connection.

My wish for 4E was that the race set up would be bigs/smalls of four races: human/hobbit, elf/kender, dwarf/gnome and hobgoblin/goblin.

 

[RithTheAwakener]

As far as I've heard, the only resemblence the Halflings have to Kender is the tendancy towards kleptomania. If this is the case, they should not be called anything another than Halflings, as they still seem to retain the qualities of the "traditional" halfing. However, I'm very happy that they seem to be the mercantile race, and very much assisted in developing trade. That is a very cool addition, IMO.