Halflings -- should they die?

[JimAde]

My halflings are Hobbits, but with a larger percentage of "Tookish" individuals than in Tolkien. They are also fully-integrated citizens of the decaying empire in whose successor states the campaign takes place. A good percentage of the Imperial Senate is Hobbit.

My gnomes are mostly itinerant magical artisans, specializing in glasswork (glass is inherently magical IMC). Their population is small and mostly nomadic, living at the fringes of more established socieities. They also act as go-betweens for the reclusive elves.

 

[DragonLancer]

I like Halflings, but they should be Hobbits not the silly half-Kender that WotC turned them into. Bah!

As for Kender, well, being a DL fan I have to love them. They really do get the short end of the stick since people don't bother to understand what they are, they just dump them in a specific box.

 

[Kae'Yoss]

it seems as empty and unrewarding to me as disliking or disregarding any race in the real world.

You know, I really dislike a race in the real world. It's called humans. Bunch of savages.


But back to the original question: "Halflings - should die?" Of course! In due time. I'm not saying we should have a Reichskristallnacht for them, but they souldn't be immortal, either. That's reserved for elves!

No, really. I wouldn't do away with halflings (and I like them how they are now. Hobbits are for LotR, as are immortal elves that are better than humans in anything and what not), nor would I do away with gnomes, or elves, or dwarves. The only PC race I think shouldn't be there is half-orcs. I don't say they souldn't be there at all - they just shouldn't be one of the very standard PC races. IMO they should be a relatively rare thing. I think orcs would kill their human prisoners, even if they commited the crimes that would lead to half-orcs. And half-orcs as love-children should be even more rare.

 

[demiurge1138]

I like 3e halflings. They're generic, which means that, if you want, you can make them nasty fat hobbitses or obnoxious little kender or dinosaur-riding barbarians or whatever (although I do prefer the dinosaur-riding barbarians...).

I do also protest comparing kender to "Dickensian little lads". On the one hand, we have well characterized, if a bit verbose, people. On the other... we have Tasselhoff Burrfoot. I hope you understand where I'm coming from.

Demiurge out.

 

[Kae'Yoss]

I hope you understand where I'm coming from.

Yes, I do. I understand you're coming from "Rohnert Park, CA"

Or do you rather mean that the race lends itself well to create a believable, interesting character, but also one that is the sum of all the stereotypes out there and want to know whether we know what you know?

 

[Arnwyn]

Halflings are hobbit-like IMC.

 

[Staffan]

I am okay to get rid not only of halflings, but more importantly, of Gnomes.

I remember Dark Sun, how cool it was they had gotten rid of gnomes. Even halflings had gotten a fair treatment in becoming savage pygmies cannibals assassins.

Pet peeve: Dark Sun halflings are NOT cannibals. They never eat other halflings.

 

[Desdichado]

Pet peeve: Dark Sun halflings are NOT cannibals. They never eat other halflings.

Yes, but all the other races were descended from halflings, so they --essentially-- still were cannibals anyway.

 

[Dark Jezter]

Keep the halflings, ditch the elves.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

I'll never understand the hate for the little people. Races, just like classes are options. If you don't need or like a particular option then don't include it. To me, however, halflings are as much a part of D&D as dwarves, bards, and magic weapons. Also, I knew when I saw the title that this thread was going to end up being a "Down With Gnomes!" rally. I think all the races are fine, depending on what a DM does with them.

I've still to hear a solid reason why halflings or gnomes don't work while dwarves are almost universally accepted. I can understand those who only want humans in their campaigns for the sake of realism, but I can't wrap my mind around this pointed hatred of particular races. While it's nowhere near as serious, it seems as empty and unrewarding to me as disliking or disregarding any race in the real world. In short, races are as diffuse and complex or as rigidly simple as the DM chooses to portray them. I don't see what can be gained from removing any of the core races.

I don't dislike halflings, but I think they've never been portrayed well in any DnD literature. I've never seen a gnome treated as anything but a joke until the "Lone Drow" series, and still, any non-gnome could have done Nanfoodle's job just as well. (He's a gnome illusionist/alchemist, two stereotypes rolled into one. *Rolleyes*)

Halflings are frequently treated as jokes, too, but at least LotR portrayed some halflings as not being wimps. (Indeed, the only halfling wimp I recall having any amount of screen time was Bilbo!)

Dwarves are cool, on the other hand. They range the gamut from chaotic to lawful, and don't seem like a bunch of stereotypes. Gimli's cool, and wasn't a wimp. (Dwarves have iron muscles and weight about as much as humans, which is why they're not weak, despite their smaller size.)

Yeah, they have the Alchemy bonus of the halfling and the free cantrips of the dwarf...

It's almost like WotC didn't know what to do with gnomes and threw more stereotypes at them. So, they like nature, they like crafting and alchemy, they like illusions and pranks!... no, still not seeing good flavor for this. It's worse, since giving a gnome who has never seen a chipmunk the ability to speak with animals is just adding baggage. Maybe they could use gnome feats instead?

Hint: turning them into Communists doesn't give them any mroe flavor. I agree that Eberron marginalized gnomes. As for half-orcs, I can't take them seriously in Eberron where orcs are actually a force to be reckoned with. In fact, toss out that silly dragonmark and you have no reason to have half-orcs in that world.