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.

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

I have been rummaging online 2e Monstrous Compendiums.

The brownie is a kind of faerie folk, a gnome-like house sprite resembling a Tiny elf. In the reallife folkbelief, a brownie is the influential presence of a home itself, where humans live: the spirit of a place.

The 2e brownie lives near but separately from humans, in small burrows or abandoned buildings. I suppose this is for modesty. But I think the uncomfortable voyeurism is funny. Going to the bathroom, bathing, intimacy, are all normal activities of a home. The house is aware.



Anyway, the creature description explicitly says:

"Brownies are small, benign humanoids who may be very distantly related to halflings."

The creature description makes the claim uncertain. But it is the first sentence. D&D officially associates the halfling as a kind of Fey, and part of a family of races that include house sprites.

I am impressed that the 2e authors seem to be aware of the reallife connection.

brownie → house sprite → hob → hobbit → halfling



In the same sense that there is a "goblinoid" family of races, there can also be a "gnomic" family of races. The halfling is one of these, and has "Fey ancestry", whence the luck.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Would it be more or less dwarven if they were called "saloons"?
Probably more.

The term "saloon" (from French salon) cognates Norse salr, a Nordic longhouse.

In the sense that a saloon is a great central room, with small rooms off from it, it might feel dwarven.
 

You know it's interesting, I don't recall ever making a case for moral superiority. I do recall making a case that they'd put more value on institutions/activities that serve people. Like it's more of a priority for them than say magic or mining or money. And the end result is they'd have more and/or better civic institutions.

But, from what you've posted and in defiance of all reason and real world experience, all races must have exactly equal and equivalent civic institutions. Anything else is Mary Suism and bad storytelling.

Whatever. I'm done. Not like you're reading the posts you respond to anyway.

Accusations of not reading? That's BINGO! I got a BINGO! Wonder what I will win?

Sarcasm aside. How else would you like to define "care more about institution's that help people than money". I mean, to me, sitting in a capitalist society... that's kind of morality tale 101 "The greedy business owner cares more about people than what is good for the community and is stood up to by the little people who care about the place they live in". This is a story framework that is incredibly common and, wait for, a morality tale about the value of people over money.


You may have never directly stated "I think they are morally superior" and hey, I never accused you of directly stating it. But I don't see how you can not see it in the statements being made. I never said you advocated for mary suism, but your posts helped highlight it for me. And instead of trying to refute my conclusion, you just double down that I'm putting words in your mouth. The only words those being the ones you actually did literally say about halflings flaw being that they care too much.

And I know you will ignore all this, you'll accuse me of every bad faith action under the sun and complain about how I'm a terrible person, but it is really not a stretch to assume that the people famous for building buildings would build a theater. Dwarves build, it is a thing they do. And would they have use for a theater? Yes, not for the avant-garde production of the Little Dwarven Matchgirl, but for the dramatic reading of the Oration of Kings which lays out the history of the Clans and their struggles? Heck yes Dwarves are into that stuff. Is it good theater? Well, it is good Dwarven theater. It isn't like art isn't subjective. And it fits into their aesthetic and their values to do something like that. Just like them being a tight-knit clan and caring about the clan means they probably have grandmothers who bake or cook for their grandchildren. It is kind of fair to assume they have functioning societies and family units. Now maybe it is grandma's special moonshine instead of grandma's special chocolate chip cookies, but that's a detail, not the key component.
 

Morality is not inherently tied to what you do.

"I help people because it makes me look better"
is different from..

"I help people because it gives me physical pleasure (or a failure to do so causes me physical pain)"
is different from..

"I help people because I'm afraid God will smite me if i don't"
is different from..

"I help people because its a way I can control them"
is different from..

"I help people because I'll get a reward"
is different from..

"I help people because I never learned there was another option"
is different from..

"I help my people because I think my people are worthwhile and deserving of help even if I don't get anything out of it"
is different from..

"I help all people because I think all people are worthwhile and deserving of help even if I don't get anything out of it"

Maybe they're hedonists and thats how they get off. Maybe they use help as a form of currency. Maybe it's a form of governance. Maybe they are just a little nicer. It can be any, some, all, or none of these.

From a worldbuilding perspective, you can use all kinds of motivations as the underlying reason for halfling helpfulness (or Dwarven crafting, Elven spellcasting, etc.) and arrive at a whole spectrum of "morality" underpinning that society.

No matter the road you take, you still wind up with a civilization that prioritizes helping people over doing other things.
 
Last edited:

Anyway, the creature description explicitly says:

"Brownies are small, benign humanoids who may be very distantly related to halflings."

The creature description makes the claim uncertain. But it is the first sentence. D&D officially associates the halfling as a kind of Fey, and part of a family of races that include house sprites.

I am impressed that the 2e authors seem to be aware of the reallife connection.

brownie → house sprite → hob → hobbit → halfling



In the same sense that there is a "goblinoid" family of races, there can also be a "gnomic" family of races. The halfling is one of these, and has "Fey ancestry", whence the luck.
AD&D didn't have monster types, though--except, perhaps, for humanoids, which was a term used for any non-human human-shaped being that wasn't a demi-human (dwarf, elf, gnome, halfling). So basically, they lumped brownies in with orcs, goblins, and kobolds. And more importantly, brownies (and nixies, pixies, and sprites as well) could be charmed by the AD&D charm person spell.

While the writers almost certainly realized that the real-world mythology and literature made them related, AD&D rules didn't care about that.
 

AD&D didn't have monster types, though--except, perhaps, for humanoids, which was a term used for any non-human human-shaped being that wasn't a demi-human (dwarf, elf, gnome, halfling). So basically, they lumped brownies in with orcs, goblins, and kobolds. And more importantly, brownies (and nixies, pixies, and sprites as well) could be charmed by the AD&D charm person spell.
1e largely didn't need creature types other than to define these things:
--- kindred species (i.e. those which are PC-playable)
--- persons (for what can be hit with a charm person or hold person spell)
--- humanoids (for what a Ranger's damage bonus applies against)
--- animals (for what can be hit with all the various Druidic animal-affecting spells)
--- undead (obvious)

I'm not sure the further codifying of creatures into types really adds very much, though I suppose it's necessary now that Rangers can pick a type to get their bonus against.
 

AD&D didn't have monster types, though--except, perhaps, for humanoids, which was a term used for any non-human human-shaped being that wasn't a demi-human (dwarf, elf, gnome, halfling). So basically, they lumped brownies in with orcs, goblins, and kobolds. And more importantly, brownies (and nixies, pixies, and sprites as well) could be charmed by the AD&D charm person spell.

While the writers almost certainly realized that the real-world mythology and literature made them related, AD&D rules didn't care about that.
Yeah, this is the "Tolkien-ization" of reallife folkbeliefs. As if, every concept is somehow some kind of "exotic" human ethnicity.
 

On the other hand,

What if halflings (as a group, individuals may vary) help people solely out of the goodness in their hearts. Is this actually a worldbuilding problem?

Do campaign worlds exist where there are zero good organizations made up of groups of people with goodness in their hearts?

If not, what are those organizations doing? Are they helping people? Is it a problem if fractionally more halflings also do those things or do them more frequently/passionately? Is it a problem if halflings lead some or even most of these efforts?

Would it mean these halflings have no flaws? That they would be immune to substance abuse, infidelity, egotism, narcissism, ignorance, insecurity, laziness, loneliness, jealousy, pettiness, spitefulness, etc. etc. etc.

It would not. Not being greedy does not make you good. Even if it did, being good does not make you perfect.
 
Last edited:

I'm not sure the further codifying of creatures into types really adds very much, though I suppose it's necessary now that Rangers can pick a type to get their bonus against.
It simplifies things. In Ye Olden Days, if you had a weapon that did extra damage to "dragons," you had to actually figure out what counts as a dragon. Are wyverns or hydras dragons? Chimeras have a dragon head--does that count? Probably not, but some tables may say otherwise. In 2e, charm person affected dryads but didn't say anything about satyrs.

So, for things like that, creature types are great.
 

On the other hand,

What if halflings (as a group, individuals may vary) help people solely out of the goodness in their hearts. Is this actually a worldbuilding problem?

Do campaign worlds exist where there are zero good organizations made up of groups of people with goodness in their hearts?

If not, what are those organizations doing? Are they helping people? Is it a problem if fractionally more halflings also do those things or do them more frequently/passionately? Is it a problem if halflings lead some or even most of these efforts?

Would it mean these halflings have no flaws? That they would be immune to substance abuse, infidelity, egotism, narcissism, ignorance, insecurity, laziness, loneliness, jealousy, pettiness, spitefulness, etc. etc. etc.

It would not. Not being greedy does not make you good. Even if it did, being good does not make you perfect.
settings with zero good guy organisations are any edge or really grom setting they have been done for years.

but making the halflings the most good people have two problems,
a) that makes them closer to the definition of good, and as far as I am concerned that is giving a definition which in a game of fundamentally multiple distinct goods saying one is better than the others will make a correct moral stance which can get controversial fast.
b) a bunch of apathetic stay out of sight and do no great things good, says good is both impotent and apathetic which does not work in a game of heroic fantasy nor has good connotations.
 

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top