D&D General My Problem(s) With Halflings, and How To Create Engaging/Interesting Fantasy Races

[Bardic Dave]

I've positioned myself as having an opinion, yes. I think my opinion is right, because I support it with evidence. And whenever someone decides I am wrong... they just say I am wrong and don't really support their points with anything at all.

Ah, that explains it then. I’m just going to leave you with a few things to ponder:
1) There’s no such thing as having the “right” opinion in this case; this is strictly a matter of taste. This is not a matter of scientific or historical truth. The fact that you approach this as a debate to be won and not a discussion to compare/contrast different viewpoints is what rubs people the wrong way.
2) Nobody is under any obligation to support their preferences with evidence so that you can determine whether their preference is “right”.
3) Nonetheless, people have shared a variety of reasons and examples to explain their preferences, all of which you have summarily dismissed as insufficient. You’ve then gone on to claim that no such evidence has been provided, but anyone can easily determine that’s not true simply by skimming through this thread. Speaking personally, it is somewhat frustrating to have your explanations dismissed and ignored, only to be met with further demands to provide evidence (which I can only assume will be dismissed and ignored).

Do with this information what you will.

 

[Chaosmancer]

I suggested to Chaosmancer the idea that halflings could be considered the best farmers and chefs (in the same way that dwarfs are considered the best miners and smiths), or that city-dwelling humans could rely on halflings to do the farming for them. And Chaosmancer decided that I meant that they could be the only farmers.

It took me a moment to find, @doctorbadwolf , but Faolyn is right. I totally took them out of context. See:

Farmers do. Or specifically, people who need to eat and can't easily grow, hunt or gather food themselves. Which is everyone in a city--which is the preferred habitat of humans.


Seems like halflings could be the main agriculturalists of these standard worlds. They may not be making history, but without them, everyone else would have starved to death before they could make history themselves.

Really? I brought up ideas like, halflings travel the world to record history, or they work in secret to overthrow kingdoms, or they control the entire area's food supply, or they're a dispossessed minority forced into the ghettos of human cities and adopt human customs, losing their own culture in the process... and those are boring or weak?

What do you consider to be a strong racial hook? Seriously.

It's an extrapolation. No other race is depicted as being both part of a society and also rejecting that society's rulers and having "inherent stealth and [an] unassuming nature [that] helps halflings to avoid unwanted attention. No other race is depicted as being good farmers or chefs. There are logical conclusions that can be drawn from this information. I showed you one such conclusion.

They not only put forth the idea of halflings being the main source of food, with potentially other races dying of starvation if it wasn't for halflings, but then doubled down on it. Totally my fault for thinking that people starving to death if it weren't for halflings meant that they were the only farmers in the area, controlling all the food in an area.

 

[Chaosmancer]

One person said it could mean nothing.

One person who was the only one to respond to me. I can't just assume that everyone else has access to different lore. And while they said "could mean" they also never offered anything else.

No, they didn't. they said that you could make such a world, if you wanted to, and it wouldn't be out of line with the PHB lore, and I'm pretty sure they didn't actually say that they would be the only farmers, just that many human cities might rely on halfling farmers.

What is the difference between your "you could make such a world" and my post which says "then we could assume a world"

Assuming a world is the same as making such a world, isn't it? You seem like you are splitting hairs for no reason.

No, it isn't. You're jumping to that as if it is a necessarily conclusion, but it is not. "laid back friendly farmers" is a quick description, not some sort of literal statement of exactly what all halflings are. It's what their vibe is, in general. I don't understand why you're having such a hard time distinguishing between general ideas about things that are common, and universal literal statements of absolute facts about all halflings.

But it isn't a general description of their vibe. Unless in general they are all farmers. And we can showcase really quickly and really easily that they have to be more than that. They are farmers, yes, but they are also going to need cobblers, tanners, bakers, and millers. The most common occupation I've seen are halfling innkeepers. There are also supposed to be nomads, which means they have hunters and merchants too.

So, "farmers" isn't accurate for halflings. Yet, all we see talked about and depicted is the pastoral life of a farm. It is more accurate to say that halflings are commoners... and that is true of everyone. Most elves are commoners. Most dwarves are commoners. Most Humans are commoners. That is the definition of "commoner"

Did you poll a significant number of people? I only ever saw one person reply to you about that, so where are you getting "everyone" from? Why are you so bent on this throwaway line? Stout halflings resemble dwarves more than they do humans, in some ways, and people in the world take note of that and wonder why. What is confusing about that? I genuinely don't understand why these things bother or confuse you, in part because you refuse to extrapolate your reasoning for anything without hyperbolic melodrama.

I said "one person" in the first sentence. And there was a second who agreed with them.

And the reason I am getting "hung up" on this line is because it is another brick in the foundation I am building. I had people that were saying that I'm making up this lack of lore, but we have entire races devoted to mixed-blood between humans and other beings. Yet the only answer I got to "why does this say halfings and dwarves were mixing" was that they weren't actually mixing and it was a lie.

Sure, I can believe that people in the world can make up baseless rumors that are false about different races based on superficial similarities. But this baseless rumor that is supposedly false was written into the description of the race. It is also the only baseless rumor written into any of the races that is not specifically called out as being false. In fact, it might be the only baseless rumor, but I could be forgetting some other ones.

So, if this rumor is false... why is it included in the book? What value was there is making one of the only things about the Stout halflings be a total fabrication made up by folks who have no idea of the truth, without calling it out as such.

And, if this rumor is true... why is there nothing written anywhere about how and why this happened?

It all points to the thing I've been saying. Halfling lore seems incomplete and sometimes poorly written. That's why I made the post and why I'm trying to show that this idea is just boggling.

 

[Gammadoodler]

The idea that "humanoid" is similiar to "human" isn't the problem.

The fact that you are using physical descriptions such as "two arms and two legs" and "can think" and then saying that since all races have basic cognition and four limbs that they are basically the same thing is what I'm finding difficult. Because, shocking, being similiar to humans physiologically has never been an issue. I haven't seen someone stating that "well halflings have heads, so they are too similar" yet you seem to be thinking the reverse is somehow making a point.



I was talking a lot about their culture. Halflings seem to constantly be relgated to just being short, happy humans. Meanwhile simply looking at a goat does not make you think it is a small rhino or a small horse. Those both exist, and neither of them are goats. But other than insisting on their personality being different.. what actually would make someone look at a halfling and not think they are a small human?



I don't believe I have ever seen a dragonborn drawn with lips. Having a completely different facial structure would make you sound different. And I don't think anyone would call that "baseless conjecture". In fact, I'd say it is pretty factual, since large changes to a human's facial structure can change how their voice sounds.



This is actually pretty cool. I like this idea. We should rewrite halflings to include things like this instead of just living in hidden farms and in human cities, with no mounted creatures or even beast taming even mentioned.

I would also argue that they don't use "lighter weight materials" because they have access to the same materials as everyone else.



And again, nothing of any of that appears. AND THAT IS MY PROBLEM.

You obviously don't dismiss how cool it would be to have a halfling city on a cliffside, with tightropes connecting the buildings as they fly larger birds to scout the area. That's AWESOME. It is also complete unlike any description of halflings in the core books. The closest is Talenta halflings riding pterosaurs

So, why would it be a bad thing to include that sort of stuff in the halfling write up? Why would it hurt the game to make their cities take more advantage of their physiology? Why not expand them beyond pastoral farmlands and have some of these actually cool ideas in the game?

Not breaking quotes.. I refuse.

The entirety of my original point was that all the humanoid races can be boiled down to "basically human". This is not a trait unique to halflings and spending the energy to get there for one particular race is a waste. I'm sorry you were unable to make this connection based on a list of traits and had to have the definition of humanoid pointed out to you twice. It seems you understand and agree now.

Your description of dragonborn facial anatomy and vocal timbre and my description of halfling settlements are equally factual..which is to say, not factual at all.

These are fantasy creatures in fantasy settings. None of it is real. There are no facts...
I am astounded at how often I've had to say that on these boards.

That said I would like it if more of that or stuff like it were explicitly in the lore. I don't think I've ever been unclear about that.

My full opinion on the existing lore is that it is adequate. Not excellent or ideal. It has enough for a passing grade and no better.

(Oh, and building materials are produced based on what's available and what you can do with them. If its possible, economical, and safe to build lighter, using different available materials or construction methods, then that is what would happen eventually)

 

[Gammadoodler]

So... "everything the player doesn't describe is 100% in the DM's hands"

Yes. That is how the game works. What you stated before was "Everything is 100% in the DM's hands". I'm sure you can see the differences between the two statements.

Sure. And those gaps are pretty much exactly equivalent to other races' dreams from a player perspective.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Not breaking quotes.. I refuse.

The entirety of my original point was that all the humanoid races can be boiled down to "basically human". This is not a trait unique to halflings and spending the energy to get there for one particular race is a waste. I'm sorry you were unable to make this connection based on a list of traits and had to have the definition of humanoid pointed out to you twice. It seems you understand and agree now.

So Humans and goblins are highly similiar in more than just the way of "I think" and "I have a head and two arms and two legs"

I mean, I think they are actually quite different. As are ogres which think, have a head, two arms and two legs, and forward facing eyes. Also, they are giants, not humanoid. Oh and mindflayers which think, have a head, two arms, two legs, forward facing eyes, and are corporeal. They are also not humanoid, they are abberations.

So, again, the way you went about "proving" that everything humanoid is "basically human" addresses none of the points I have ever brought up, and is very much like Plato's definition of a man. If it can also be a plucked chicken, it isn't a terribly great definition.

Yes, if you reduce things enough, lots of things look the same. The degree which you have to reduce them is why we can say that some races aren't "basically human" and some are.

Your description of dragonborn facial anatomy and vocal timbre and my description of halfling settlements are equally factual..which is to say, not factual at all.

These are fantasy creatures in fantasy settings. None of it is real. There are no facts...
I am astounded at how often I've had to say that on these boards.

Then you can show me an official depiction of dragonborn with lips? I don't need you to try and prove that massively changing the facial structure of a person alters their voice, that one is incredibly self-evident.

I'm often astounded at how many people try to act like "fantasy" means "there is no consensus, everything is made up and meaningless"

That said I would like it if more of that or stuff like it were explicitly in the lore. I don't think I've ever been unclear about that.

My full opinion on the existing lore is that it is adequate. Not excellent or ideal. It has enough for a passing grade and no better.

(Oh, and building materials are produced based on what's available and what you can do with them. If its possible, economical, and safe to build lighter, using different available materials or construction methods, then that is what would happen eventually)

Are you trying to say something like they would use Balsa wood instead of pine? Most building materials are wood, stone and clay, and while you can make all of those thinner, they aren't "lighter materials"

Or were you thinking of materials more like the size and thickness of the shingles and boards and not in the actual quality of the materials themselves? This isn't some sort of gotcha, I'm just honestly confused by what you are trying to convey

 

[Chaosmancer]

Sure. And those gaps are pretty much exactly equivalent to other races' dreams from a player perspective.

Sure, "In my past life I spent 300 years with my lover, building a house together, and I visit that memory of our time together as I hope to meet her again in this life" is totally 100% the same as "I dreamed about my true love, I wonder if she is real or just a dream?"

 

[doctorbadwolf]

It took me a moment to find, @doctorbadwolf , but Faolyn is right. I totally took them out of context. See:











They not only put forth the idea of halflings being the main source of food, with potentially other races dying of starvation if it wasn't for halflings, but then doubled down on it. Totally my fault for thinking that people starving to death if it weren't for halflings meant that they were the only farmers in the area, controlling all the food in an area.

Good lord.

You take nearly everything you respond to either out of context, wildly too literally, or try to extrapolate it to some nonsensically hyperbolic conclusion with little relation to why anyone is saying.

So yea, totally your fault.

 

[JiffyPopTart]

One person who was the only one to respond to me. I can't just assume that everyone else has access to different lore. And while they said "could mean" they also never offered anything else.



What is the difference between your "you could make such a world" and my post which says "then we could assume a world"

Assuming a world is the same as making such a world, isn't it? You seem like you are splitting hairs for no reason.



But it isn't a general description of their vibe. Unless in general they are all farmers. And we can showcase really quickly and really easily that they have to be more than that. They are farmers, yes, but they are also going to need cobblers, tanners, bakers, and millers. The most common occupation I've seen are halfling innkeepers. There are also supposed to be nomads, which means they have hunters and merchants too.

So, "farmers" isn't accurate for halflings. Yet, all we see talked about and depicted is the pastoral life of a farm. It is more accurate to say that halflings are commoners... and that is true of everyone. Most elves are commoners. Most dwarves are commoners. Most Humans are commoners. That is the definition of "commoner"



I said "one person" in the first sentence. And there was a second who agreed with them.

And the reason I am getting "hung up" on this line is because it is another brick in the foundation I am building. I had people that were saying that I'm making up this lack of lore, but we have entire races devoted to mixed-blood between humans and other beings. Yet the only answer I got to "why does this say halfings and dwarves were mixing" was that they weren't actually mixing and it was a lie.

Sure, I can believe that people in the world can make up baseless rumors that are false about different races based on superficial similarities. But this baseless rumor that is supposedly false was written into the description of the race. It is also the only baseless rumor written into any of the races that is not specifically called out as being false. In fact, it might be the only baseless rumor, but I could be forgetting some other ones.

So, if this rumor is false... why is it included in the book? What value was there is making one of the only things about the Stout halflings be a total fabrication made up by folks who have no idea of the truth, without calling it out as such.

And, if this rumor is true... why is there nothing written anywhere about how and why this happened?

It all points to the thing I've been saying. Halfling lore seems incomplete and sometimes poorly written. That's why I made the post and why I'm trying to show that this idea is just boggling.

EDIT: I removed my previous snarky reply that perpetuates bad karma and I stead just say that I don't believe your characterization of what I said fairly reflects the words I used.

Be that as it may, I've reached my Enworld argument clinic limit for the week so expect no further response from me on the matter.

 

[JiffyPopTart]

Rules question: If you play a campaign where elves are recycling souls from past lives then what happens when someone raises dead on one of their previous dead bodies?

And what do the elven gods do in an afterlife with no souls piling up?