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.

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?

 

[Chaosmancer]

Um, no. @Lanefan has since clarified that his halflings are NG. That's a fine homebrew for them. Absent such clarifications, the default "good" for halflings is LG. Using the default in the absence of such clarification is how discussion works when talking about book halflings and book halfling lore, and is not putting words in anyone's mouth.

So, again, you know what they meant, because clearly they meant LG even though they never said LG, because despite the fact we are talking about halflings over all editions and in a variety of settings not explicitly 5e, they must be using the 5e lore when they talk about them, and nothing else.

Except one person already said they weren't doing that. So... your assumption was wrong. And since your entire refutation of my point involves your assumption being correct and everyone else meaning that halflings aren't good, but specifically lawful good... It seems like "I know they meant the lore in the books, because obviously they did, because obviously we are talking about 5e PHB halflings in that instance, not the other halflings we've discussed all thread" is a fairly clear example of putting words in other people's mouths.

 

[James Gasik]

See, now if any D&D race were to count as "bottom of the barrel," it would be dwarfs, because so few people bother to do anything different with them. They don't seem to inspire much creativity among the players, either in terms of build or personality.

(I do not think that any race should be considered "bottom of the barrel," however, and if everyone wants to play the same gruff dwarf stereotype, that's cool by me.)

There's something about the Dwarven archetype that resonates with many people. Gruff, stubborn bordering on indomitable, hard working, salt of the earth, actions speak louder than words, would give you the shirt off their back, and always, always has your six, even if they love to argue with you types.

Chances are, you know someone like this in real life!

Now granted, there is no reason at all you couldn't play a Human this way, and this does lend itself well to "humans with r̶u̶b̶b̶e̶r̶ ̶f̶o̶r̶e̶h̶e̶a̶d̶s̶ beards" problem a lot of races have, but it's one of the reasons why Dwarves are considered an iconic race.

 

[Chaosmancer]

See, now if any D&D race were to count as "bottom of the barrel," it would be dwarfs, because so few people bother to do anything different with them. They don't seem to inspire much creativity among the players, either in terms of build or personality.

(I do not think that any race should be considered "bottom of the barrel," however, and if everyone wants to play the same gruff dwarf stereotype, that's cool by me.)

Dwarves are probably played the most stereotypical of any race in the game. And that does seem to be in part because the stereotype is the lore, to a large degree. They present an interesting puzzle as a design concept.

 

[Hussar]

When did "bottom of the barrel" because so few people play them become "bottom of the barrel" because people stick to one archetype and that's uncreative?

Bottom of the barrel only ever referred to the fact that throughout the entire history of the game, even in editions where you only had 4 races - Human, elf, dwarf and halfling, halflings STILL were the least played race in the game. They've always been the least played race in the core of the game. At no point in the history of the game were halflings ever a popular, widely played choice. Human->elf->dwarf->halfling has always been the order of things. Tack gnomes on after halfling and that's been the history of D&D.

Has nothing to do with creativity or how people play the game or liking this or not liking that. It's just plain fact. Halfling and then gnome.

Going on 50 years now. But, sure, we should keep on the same track because, y'know, trying anything different cough*Tiefling, Dragonborn in the PHB couldn't possibly work.

 

[Maxperson]

So, again, you know what they meant, because clearly they meant LG even though they never said LG, because despite the fact we are talking about halflings over all editions and in a variety of settings not explicitly 5e, they must be using the 5e lore when they talk about them, and nothing else.

I don't care what they meant. If we are talking halflings as written and someone says good without clarifying further, the default assumption is that they are referring to LG. If they meant something different, it's their fault for not clarifying. Not mine for assuming that in a talk about defaults, the default alignment was what was meant by good.

Except one person already said they weren't doing that.

After I mentioned it.

So... your assumption was wrong.

It actually wasn't. Because the assumption I made about him specifically is that he wasn't running all halflings as one alignment and that he would be okay with villages of halflings that were neutral or even evil, since halfling alignment isn't an absolute. He liked my post that said that.

His change to homebrew NG wasn't relevant to my point above, and it showed that even if he is old school with racial alignments, he wasn't treating all halflings has having to be one alignment as a race.

And since your entire refutation of my point involves your assumption being correct and everyone else meaning that halflings aren't good, but specifically lawful good... It seems like "I know they meant the lore in the books, because obviously they did, because obviously we are talking about 5e PHB halflings in that instance, not the other halflings we've discussed all thread" is a fairly clear example of putting words in other people's mouths.

LG is just what they are by default in 1e, 2e and 5e. 3e had them as neutral for some reason and I have no idea what 4e did to them. The actual type of good wasn't what was relevant to my point, though. My point was that even as an old school DM with racial alignments, halflings in his game didn't have to be whatever alignment he used for the race.

 

[Faolyn]

When did "bottom of the barrel" because so few people play them become "bottom of the barrel" because people stick to one archetype and that's uncreative?

Because--if you were going to consider any race to be the bottom--then if people are playing all sorts of different halflings, then that peopel are putting thought and effort into their characters. They're thinking of ways to make their halfling fun for them; they're thinking of their halfling's personality and life and origins. But if everyone[1] is playing the same sort of surly and/or alcoholic Scottish dwarf (that is most often a fighter, cleric, or maybe a wizard to take advantage on the armor proficiency), then it indicates that the dwarf isn't a race that people are thinking about and don't care all that much about as people. They just grab a dwarf off the rack and go.

(Plus lightfoot halflings were equally as popular as hill dwarfs and nearly as popular as mountain dwarfs.)

--

[1] not literally everyone.

 

[Hussar]

Because--if you were going to consider any race to be the bottom--then if people are playing all sorts of different halflings, then that peopel are putting thought and effort into their characters. They're thinking of ways to make their halfling fun for them; they're thinking of their halfling's personality and life and origins. But if everyone[1] is playing the same sort of surly and/or alcoholic Scottish dwarf (that is most often a fighter, cleric, or maybe a wizard to take advantage on the armor proficiency), then it indicates that the dwarf isn't a race that people are thinking about and don't care all that much about as people. They just grab a dwarf off the rack and go.

(Plus lightfoot halflings were equally as popular as hill dwarfs and nearly as popular as mountain dwarfs.)

--

[1] not literally everyone.

But, again, that's not what I meant and is adding a value judgement that is 100% your own.

When I said bottom of the barrel, I mean exactly that. Gnomes and halflings are the least played races in core D&D. Thus, they are at the bottom of the barrel. How these characters are played, who is more creative, who is more interesting, is not my concern. I don't really care how someone else plays something. That's none of my business. I'm not judging anyone's yum.

What I am judging though, is the fact that despite being the least played races in the history of the game, we absolutely MUST include gnomes and halflings in the PHB (note, I do NOT MEAN they should be removed from the game) because to do otherwise is unthinkable. And, we MUST include SEPARATE gnomes and halflings because we're not allowed to change any of the lore or background in an attempt to make either or both races more attractive to players because to do otherwise is unthinkable.

But, please, do not attribute judging how other people play their characters to me. I never even hinted at that. Never even remotely suggested that. I'm simply looking at the historical facts - gnomes and halflings have never been popular races to play. They have always been the least popular races in the PHB. When we added new races to the PHB, not only were the new races popular, they were more popular than quite a number of existing PHB races. IMO, there is a very strong argument to be made in a revised race palette in the PHB. But, as we've seen in this thread, that's going to go the same way as trying to add psionics or warlords to the game. There is just not enough agreement here to make any compromise.

 

[James Gasik]

But, again, that's not what I meant and is adding a value judgement that is 100% your own.

When I said bottom of the barrel, I mean exactly that. Gnomes and halflings are the least played races in core D&D. Thus, they are at the bottom of the barrel. How these characters are played, who is more creative, who is more interesting, is not my concern. I don't really care how someone else plays something. That's none of my business. I'm not judging anyone's yum.

What I am judging though, is the fact that despite being the least played races in the history of the game, we absolutely MUST include gnomes and halflings in the PHB (note, I do NOT MEAN they should be removed from the game) because to do otherwise is unthinkable. And, we MUST include SEPARATE gnomes and halflings because we're not allowed to change any of the lore or background in an attempt to make either or both races more attractive to players because to do otherwise is unthinkable.

But, please, do not attribute judging how other people play their characters to me. I never even hinted at that. Never even remotely suggested that. I'm simply looking at the historical facts - gnomes and halflings have never been popular races to play. They have always been the least popular races in the PHB. When we added new races to the PHB, not only were the new races popular, they were more popular than quite a number of existing PHB races. IMO, there is a very strong argument to be made in a revised race palette in the PHB. But, as we've seen in this thread, that's going to go the same way as trying to add psionics or warlords to the game. There is just not enough agreement here to make any compromise.

Yeah, I remember the last Psionics thread. Yikes.

So ok, here's the thing. Could the game remove Gnomes and Halflings from the PHB? Maybe. It would be odd to not have them around, since so many settings have them, or standins like Kender. But whether these settings have them because they are in the PHB, or they are in the PHB because settings have them is a chicken or egg debate.

The question then becomes what to replace them with? And how many players will look at this as a reason to see the "new D&D" as not being the kind of game they want to play?

The outcry about Gnomes not being in the 4e PHB wasn't about Gnomes, I don't think. I think it became a rallying cry for people who didn't feel like they needed a new edition, and were upset that it wasn't like whatever kind of D&D they felt comfortable playing- lore changes like removing the Great Wheel, which really, only Planescape fans cared too much about, and adding Dragonborn to the PHB was the same way.

People need to feel that yes, this is in fact the game I love. So a PHB with no Gnomes, or Halflings, but say, Kobolds or Goblins, will be a little scary. What is this game? What else has changed? Why should I switch to this instead of my security blanket game?

We know, from a business standpoint, that WotC wants everyone on the bus. So they aren't going to ditch these races because of that, no matter how popular or not they are.

I like Halflings, but I admit their default lore isn't exciting. Of course, most races are in the same boat, so in my games, if I want Halflings or any race, I need to make lore that's more compelling.

And even if I do, that's no guarantee anyone will want to play a given race. I think most people are, at best, happy with the idea of Halflings being around, more than really wanting to play one. But it's not like they take up much space, either (lol).

I mean, let's be honest, the lore for Dragonborn is way worse. The only reason they are popular is, well, dragons are cool for a larger cross section of people than Halflings, I suppose. Until recently, it wasn't like their racials were all that.

And ultimately, that's how I look at this debate. The reason to get rid of Halflings has nothing really to do with mechanics or lore- but popularity. If you don't like 'em, and few people play 'em, why have them?

And the answer, sadly is, because nostalgia. And nostalgia is a powerful marketing tool, and WotC knows it. What I would prefer is WotC doing more with all the races, but they're not going to do that either, for the same reason.

There were people who griped that 3e Halflings weren't Hobbits anymore, for example. "They just look like Kender!" When you buy a product, chances are you're buying the brand. And if the brand changes, you can end up with a New Coke situation on your hands.

Again though, sure, if you weren't worried about the market, you could remove less popular races. But I don't see a real reason for it. What are you going to replace them with? Another couple kinds of Elves? Monstrous races?

What race has a huge presence in established settings....or, if we want to be honest, the only setting that will matter, the Forgotten Realms, that's more popular, and plays well with others, that we can put in the PHB?

Orcs? Not traditionally, but maybe in the new, kinder, gentler D&D we'll have Orc towns and Orc mayors, and Orc merchants in major cities, who can say?

 

[Chaosmancer]

I don't care what they meant. If we are talking halflings as written and someone says good without clarifying further, the default assumption is that they are referring to LG. If they meant something different, it's their fault for not clarifying. Not mine for assuming that in a talk about defaults, the default alignment was what was meant by good.

So... you don't care what they meant. So your response to me, criticizing my point, was based not on the point itself, not on what the other person meant, but on your own interpretation of what them and myself SHOULD have said.

And if they didn't mean what you interpreted, well, that's on them, but I'm still wrong for correctly responding to what they actually said, becuase I should have ignored what they said and only responded to what they "obviously meant" because I should "assume the default"

So, again. You put words in their mouth, then used the words you put their to attack my point, incorrectly, because they never said what you claimed. You just think they SHOULD have said it, because everyone should default to the lore you think everyone should default to, even when talking about hypotheticals not in the lore, like entirely new settings.

And you wonder why I regret responding to you.

LG is just what they are by default in 1e, 2e and 5e. 3e had them as neutral for some reason and I have no idea what 4e did to them. The actual type of good wasn't what was relevant to my point, though. My point was that even as an old school DM with racial alignments, halflings in his game didn't have to be whatever alignment he used for the race.

Which had nothing to do with the point being made, so your point is ignored because it does not apply. And I'm done with this tangent now.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Yeah, I remember the last Psionics thread. Yikes.

So ok, here's the thing. Could the game remove Gnomes and Halflings from the PHB? Maybe. It would be odd to not have them around, since so many settings have them, or standins like Kender. But whether these settings have them because they are in the PHB, or they are in the PHB because settings have them is a chicken or egg debate.

The question then becomes what to replace them with? And how many players will look at this as a reason to see the "new D&D" as not being the kind of game they want to play?

The outcry about Gnomes not being in the 4e PHB wasn't about Gnomes, I don't think. I think it became a rallying cry for people who didn't feel like they needed a new edition, and were upset that it wasn't like whatever kind of D&D they felt comfortable playing- lore changes like removing the Great Wheel, which really, only Planescape fans cared too much about, and adding Dragonborn to the PHB was the same way.

People need to feel that yes, this is in fact the game I love. So a PHB with no Gnomes, or Halflings, but say, Kobolds or Goblins, will be a little scary. What is this game? What else has changed? Why should I switch to this instead of my security blanket game?

We know, from a business standpoint, that WotC wants everyone on the bus. So they aren't going to ditch these races because of that, no matter how popular or not they are.

I like Halflings, but I admit their default lore isn't exciting. Of course, most races are in the same boat, so in my games, if I want Halflings or any race, I need to make lore that's more compelling.

And even if I do, that's no guarantee anyone will want to play a given race. I think most people are, at best, happy with the idea of Halflings being around, more than really wanting to play one. But it's not like they take up much space, either (lol).

I mean, let's be honest, the lore for Dragonborn is way worse. The only reason they are popular is, well, dragons are cool for a larger cross section of people than Halflings, I suppose. Until recently, it wasn't like their racials were all that.

And ultimately, that's how I look at this debate. The reason to get rid of Halflings has nothing really to do with mechanics or lore- but popularity. If you don't like 'em, and few people play 'em, why have them?

And the answer, sadly is, because nostalgia. And nostalgia is a powerful marketing tool, and WotC knows it. What I would prefer is WotC doing more with all the races, but they're not going to do that either, for the same reason.

There were people who griped that 3e Halflings weren't Hobbits anymore, for example. "They just look like Kender!" When you buy a product, chances are you're buying the brand. And if the brand changes, you can end up with a New Coke situation on your hands.

Again though, sure, if you weren't worried about the market, you could remove less popular races. But I don't see a real reason for it. What are you going to replace them with? Another couple kinds of Elves? Monstrous races?

What race has a huge presence in established settings....or, if we want to be honest, the only setting that will matter, the Forgotten Realms, that's more popular, and plays well with others, that we can put in the PHB?

Orcs? Not traditionally, but maybe in the new, kinder, gentler D&D we'll have Orc towns and Orc mayors, and Orc merchants in major cities, who can say?

And most of this is why I'm more about rewriting them though.

I will say though, yes, there are some people who will be upset that their "security blanket" game has changed, but I know there are also a sizable number of people who are craving something new and different and not old-skool fantasy. Goblins are wildly popular, as are Orcs. People would be excited to see those options in the PHB. I know I would be far more interested in a well-written, interesting story for goblins in the game than I would be to see a lot of other options. One of the things that has me massively excited for the Spelljammer book, to the point I pre-ordered it despite being fairly certain I'll never run spelljammer, is that there are PLAYABLE OOZES!!! I'm stoked for that.

And I also think taking a hard look at some of the most entrenched races like the halflings and the dwarves also means we should be taking a stronger look at the stories of Dragonborn. Dragonborn lore as written.... utterly sucks. They just exist. I've taken the concept and rewritten it into my games, tying it into deep lore with my new take on dragons (previously it was because of elves, but that world is getting replaced by a new one). I want ALL the races to get looked at again and people to ask "is this really working as a story"

I get that many of these "low effort" racial write-ups is to keep them generic, or keep them matching the older lore from the original editions. But I also feel like a lot of us newer players see a lot of this stuff, and it is all things we've seen over and over again in fantasy, and we want something different. Not that we need to utterly take things out of the game, but we can certainly rewrite them with new ideas that capture the changes in the fantasy field.