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?

 

[ECMO3]

Nowhere in the halfling lore. Those refer to the classes.

You know, Thief which "You hone your skills in the larcenous arts. Burglars, bandits, cutpurses, and other criminals typically follow this archetype, but so do rogues who prefer to think of themselves as professional treasure seekers, explorers, delvers, and investigators."

Now, granted there are the other archetypes, the "professional treasure seekers" "explorers" "delvers" and "investigators", however the archetype is named THIEF not explorer or treasure seeker. So I'm going to guess it is more common to find criminals amongst them.

And then the Assassin which says "You focus your training on the grim art of death. Those who adhere to this archetype are diverse—hired killers, spies, bounty hunters, and even specially anointed priests trained to exterminate the enemies of their deity."

Again, there is wiggle room, you could be a priest trained in the art of murdering people for god, but the first part is about being a hired killer and the archetype is named ASSASSIN not "bounty hunter" or "priest"

And of course all Rogues get thieves cant, examples of which involve "such as whether an area is dangerous or the territory of a thieves' guild, whether loot is nearby, or whether the people in an area are easy marks or will provide a safe house for thieves on the run."

All of which HEAVILY implies that they will be breaking the laws. Again, you totally can have Rogues who are Lawful Good, but the common archetype of the rogue, like Han Solo, isn't a law abiding citizen who is strongly in favor of the laws. The rogue in fact seems very geared towards breaking the law, which is not something typically associated with Lawful people. So it is strange that a race so heavily associated with the class doesn't fit the archetype.

That is only two of the Rogue subclasses and I will point out most classes focus on the art of killing people.

Also bounty hunters are typically working for the law and spies are both good and evil depending on whos side you are on.

 

[Chaosmancer]

I don't think that is true though. If you are talking about halflings in particular a Lawful-Good Burglar, like Bilbo, IS the archetype.

Sure, a liar and a cheat. Totally the proto-typical LG character.

To break this in to two parts- first "good" - If killing people is inherently evil then so are many of the Lawful Good archetypes. Think of all the killing Paladins and Clerics of Tyr engage in! If we are going to accept such characters as "good" then we need to assume that killing itself, as an assassin specializes, is not inherently evil.

This does nothing to address the point. Well, it highlights why alignment debates are a waste of time, but it certainly doesn't apply to this.

As far as lawful, certainly "Thief" and "Assasin" include a thematic bias towards lawbreaking, however there are plenty of state-sanctioned "Lawful" assasins in the D&D lore and the assasins guilds themselves are emblematic of a "lawful" persuit. So even here it is not ironclad and these are only two of the available Rogue subclasses.

Sorry, what was that first point? "...certainly "Thief" and "Assasin" include a thematic bias towards lawbreaking,..."

Ah great, so we can once more see exactly what the point was. That it seems rather weird that a race people want to be heavily LG is associated with a class that has a thematic bias towards breaking the law. Don't need state sanctioned assassin's guilds, because the thematic bias is still there. Also, the idea of a thieve's guild and an adventurer's guild doesn't make those people inherently lawful, so I don't know why an assassin's guild somehow makes hired murder a "lawful" pursuit, unless it is specifically state-sanctioned, which would get into some heavy questions such as "does the state sanctioned assassin's guild allow you to purchase the assassination of state leaders" all of which has nothing to do with the point, which is the italics pointed out above. That theives and assassins have a thematic bias towards lawbreaking, which makes them odd fits for a race with a thematic bias towards following the law.

And Rogue's as a whole have a thematic bias towards law-breaking, hence why their iconic archetypes are theives, assassins, "masterminds", "tricksters" ... you know, people not bound by societies laws?

Other subclasses do not have any baggage and the class itself has nothing tied to lawbreaking or evil in terms of mechanics. Masterminds, inquisotor and swashbuckler have no subclass abilities or thematics tied to breaking the law and such thematics are pretty thin on Arcane Trickster and Phantom.

Trickster archetypes are all about breaking laws and causing upheavals in society, that's the entire point of the Trickster. It may not be the point of the subclass, but you don't have "lawful" tricksters in mythology.

Masterminds are heavily themed towards Moriarty, you know, the CRIMINAL Mastermind archetype. I mean, it literally says "Your focus is on people and on the influence and secrets they have. Many spies, courtiers, and schemers follow this archetype, leading lives of intrigue. Words are your weapons as often as knives or poison, and secrets and favors are some of your favorite treasures." They are clearly leaning on that archetype.

Now, I'll agree, the Inquisitive was designed to be Holmes, a far more lawful stereotype. But the Swashbuckler is also the PIRATE archetype. And Pirates aren't exactly known for their law-abiding natures, more for their criminal natures.

Once more. Can you possibly play a Lawful Good Rogue? Of course you can. If I had to rank Rogues, Paladins and Fighters on who is most likely to be LAwful Good, would I rank the rogue the lowest? In a heartbeat. The entire class is built on the idea of rule-breaking and non-lawful behavior. And that thematic dissonance is still there, no matter how much you try and argue that it is possible to have an LG rogue.

Suggesting the Halfling Rogue Archetype can not be lawful good because one subclass "thief" is not inherently lawful is like suggesting the Asimar Cleric archetype can't be Lawful Good because one subclass "Death Cleric" engages in Necromancy and that is tied to evil.

And that isn't at all what was being said. What was being said was that there is a strange dissonance in taking a race tied towards being LG and associating it with one of the least lawful archetypical classes in the game. For a more succinct example, it would be like saying Aasimar are most commonly Warlocks. Sure, Celestial Warlocks exist, but the thematic arena of the Warlock leads itself far more to deals with fiends and other dark powers, which would be really weird for a race so closely tied to the divine.

 

[Hussar]

Just cogitating a bit about how the race-class combos may strongly influence things.

Back in the day, dwarves were fighters with a couple of changes. Elves were fighter/MU's. Humans were a bit of everything, although, not allowed to be more than one thing at a time (Sure, 1e introduced dual classing rules, but, unless you were using some pretty seriously generous character generation, that wasn't likely on the table and was very punishing in any case) and halflings were rogues. Then came 1e. And now, you expanded quite a lot for elves - you could be an elven pretty much anything a human could be, dwarves got expanded into clerics although, still pretty much just fighters and halflings... could be rogues. Extremely limited in anything else. Even fighter, most commonly played class in the game, they were limited to what, 6th level? Something like that.

It wouldn't be until 3e that halflings could be anything that anyone else could be, and I wonder if that hadn't solidified a way of thinking about halflings that has sort of pervaded. Even in 3e, with the punishing effects of a strength penalty, and less damage with weapons, you generally didn't see a lot of halfling fighters and whatnot. Some, sure, I don't deny that at all. But, not a lot of them.

And I think that this mentality has really kept on. Since halflings for a very large chunk of the history of the game couldn't be wizards, couldn't be clerics, realistically couldn't be fighters (or could only be very limited fighters) I wonder if that might explain why halflings aren't played that often. Would generally explain why dwarves don't get played as often as, say, elves - they can be more things, but, still couldn't be MU's until 3e (and even then you saw lots of opinion that dwarves should never be wizards - an attitude that has since changed) and not very good clerics because of level limits.

I also wonder if there is any correlation between those who see more halflings being played and those who ejected (or greatly reduced) racial level limitations.

 

[Maxperson]

You know, Thief which "You hone your skills in the larcenous arts. Burglars, bandits, cutpurses, and other criminals typically follow this archetype, but so do rogues who prefer to think of themselves as professional treasure seekers, explorers, delvers, and investigators."

Now, granted there are the other archetypes, the "professional treasure seekers" "explorers" "delvers" and "investigators", however the archetype is named THIEF not explorer or treasure seeker. So I'm going to guess it is more common to find criminals amongst them.

The name isn't really relevant here. Thief includes the other archetypes that halflings will fill. Except for those bad apples mentioned that would become the bolded archetypes. All alignments, including LG are supported by this subclass.

And then the Assassin which says "You focus your training on the grim art of death. Those who adhere to this archetype are diverse—hired killers, spies, bounty hunters, and even specially anointed priests trained to exterminate the enemies of their deity."

Yeah. As I mentioned, this is more problematic to fit with LG, but also not relevant. Halflings outside of those bad apples, the LG adventuring rogues, simply pick other subclasses.

Again, there is wiggle room, you could be a priest trained in the art of murdering people for god, but the first part is about being a hired killer and the archetype is named ASSASSIN not "bounty hunter" or "priest"

That priest would in my opinion probably be NG. The good alignment most likely to engage in "the ends justify the means" activities.

And of course all Rogues get thieves cant, examples of which involve "such as whether an area is dangerous or the territory of a thieves' guild, whether loot is nearby, or whether the people in an area are easy marks or will provide a safe house for thieves on the run."

This is a nothing burger. It doesn't make you a true thief or lawbreaker, nor of an alignment other than LG.

All of which HEAVILY implies that they will be breaking the laws.

Except it ALSO heavily implies that you will simply be an adventurer that doesn't break laws. Which way you go will depend.............................................on alignment. The LG halflings simply won't be lawbreakers or assassins.

Again, you totally can have Rogues who are Lawful Good, but the common archetype of the rogue, like Han Solo, isn't a law abiding citizen who is strongly in favor of the laws. The rogue in fact seems very geared towards breaking the law, which is not something typically associated with Lawful people. So it is strange that a race so heavily associated with the class doesn't fit the archetype.

That should be A(not the) common archetype is like Han Solo. Look at Indiana Jones. He's also a rogue, but one who stands against Nazis, rescues damsels in distress and saves archeological pieces from criminals. He is another common archetype of rogue.

 

[Maxperson]

Sure, a liar and a cheat. Totally the proto-typical LG character.

LG people can do both and still be LG. The thing with Bilbo was that both of those things were out of character for him and were in large part due to the influence of the ring.

Sorry, what was that first point? "...certainly "Thief" and "Assasin" include a thematic bias towards lawbreaking,..."

Ah great, so we can once more see exactly what the point was. That it seems rather weird that a race people want to be heavily LG is associated with a class that has a thematic bias towards breaking the law. Don't need state sanctioned assassin's guilds, because the thematic bias is still there. Also, the idea of a thieve's guild and an adventurer's guild doesn't make those people inherently lawful, so I don't know why an assassin's guild somehow makes hired murder a "lawful" pursuit, unless it is specifically state-sanctioned, which would get into some heavy questions such as "does the state sanctioned assassin's guild allow you to purchase the assassination of state leaders" all of which has nothing to do with the point, which is the italics pointed out above. That theives and assassins have a thematic bias towards lawbreaking, which makes them odd fits for a race with a thematic bias towards following the law.

Except that yet again, the thief also has a thematic bias that has nothing to do with lawbreaking that is every bit as strong as the one you are trying to foist onto halflings.

 

[James Gasik]

LG people can do both and still be LG. The thing with Bilbo was that both of those things were out of character for him and were in large part due to the influence of the ring.

Except that yet again, the thief also has a thematic bias that has nothing to do with lawbreaking that is every bit as strong as the one you are trying to foist onto halflings.

Yeah I mean, you could play a Thief as a locksmith, duly licensed by the government. You could ask why a locksmith would have Sneak Attack...but you could say the same for a few other Rogue subclasses, lol.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

That's why I said "more problematic" and not impossible. The abilities are more weighted towards infiltration and death strikes to vital spots than the other rogue subclasses, which makes it a bit harder to work around LG.

I could see NG and CG much more easily than LG for an assassin. I did have a CE Drow Assassin/Shadowdancer in 3e once. Talk about nasty.

Oh I think the actual Assassin, as such, but particularly the politically or religiously motivated Assassin, is the easiest one to make LG. Once you’re killing for money, LG gets rough.

But basically put some halflings in the position of needing to regularly fend off threats from neighboring groups, and it’s easy to imagine the quiet disappearances of leaders who threaten the halflings and their allies.

But yeah you do have to avoid thinking of them as “contract killers”, and instead view them as history and modern politics use the term, which is essentially a weapon of asymmetrical warfare.

 

[Lanefan]

I also wonder if there is any correlation between those who see more halflings being played and those who ejected (or greatly reduced) racial level limitations.

Good point; although as it also applies to the other non-Human species of 1e I wonder if the flip-side rings more true - that simply fewer Humans are-were played in games that had greatly reduced or outright removed demi-Human level limits.

In my own games, which have no demi-Human level limits other than a few species simply can't be a few classes, it has made no appreciable difference; over the long run 40+% of all characters have been Human.

 

[Lazvon]

In addition to Tolkien's own statements about Hobbit stealth, yes. First, we have the scene where Bilbo sneaks up on the Trolls. Second, there's the scene where Frodo, Sam, Pippin, and Merry are hiding from Ringwraiths as they leave the Shire.

3rd we have Sam, Merry, and Pippin spying for quite a while on arguably some of the highest level characters who were assembled for the council to form the Fellowship of the Ring…

 

[Hussar]

Would you really put Sam, Merry or Pippin as rogues though? Not really what comes to mind. The only rogue really is Bilbo and even that’s a stretch.

It’s not unreasonable to say that there is a pretty big disconnect between the archetypal halflings of Tolkien and the halflings of DnD.