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]

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

Yes, the name does matter Max. Because while the "thief" can be a stand-in for many things. It is also, mainly, supposed to be A THIEF. And I love how you keep refering to "bad apple" halflings, like that has any bearing on the point that was made and the objection to it in any way, shape, or form. It doesn't.

I also don't get how you think "they'd just pick other subclasses" has any relevance, when, again, the Rogue is the most lawless class in the game. Sure, Indy is a rogue, and he punches Nazi's. And he totally takes those relics he found, alone in the Jungle, to the proper authorities, right? He definetly had government permission to go to ancient sites of cultural importance and wasn't just cutting his way through jungles with little regard to the law, right?

There is a reason Rogues were called "Thieves" in the early game. There is a reason that the PHB calls out that most rogues live up to the worst stereotypes of the class. It is because, other than the warlock, the Rogue, as a class, is the most likely to break the law out of every single class in the game. It is a stereotype, just like the Druid being a hippy and the wizard being a nerd. The Rogue is a criminal. Are their non-criminal rogues? Yes, I've acknowledged that REPEATEDLY, but they are not exactly known for being law-abiding citizens with a respect for personal property, now are they? And that is the point that was made. The stereotype vs the expected combo.

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.

Uh huh, sure the ring corrupted him within minutes of him getting it. It isn't like he lasted literal decades holding on to it. And obviously when Bilbo was being used as the example in 1e LG Paladins could lie and cheat, because that was perfectly allowed.

Then again, I don't really care about Bilbo's alignment.

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.

The thief does not have two different thematic biases. That isn't how this works. And I'm foisting nothing off on halflings. Pay attention to the actual arguments please, not your made up ones.

 

[Maxperson]

Yes, the name does matter Max. Because while the "thief" can be a stand-in for many things. It is also, mainly, supposed to be A THIEF. And I love how you keep refering to "bad apple" halflings, like that has any bearing on the point that was made and the objection to it in any way, shape, or form. It doesn't.

The bad apples are my point. Bad halflings exist in the lore and leave the village. They will both become thieves and fit the lore, so even if you trying and twist thief into a bunch of lawbreakers who only lawbreak, halflings still fit it. The reality is, though, that thieves are every bit as much NOT lawbreakers as they are lawbreakers. And when it comes to adventurers, far more will be of the non-lawbreaking kind than lawbreaking.

I also don't get how you think "they'd just pick other subclasses" has any relevance, when, again, the Rogue is the most lawless class in the game.

Not many laws in the middle of nature, so druids are even more lawless. As are rascally anti-civilization barbarians. It also doesn't matter. Not one bit. Even if 90% of rogues were lawless, the other 10% could be LG halflings and fit the lore.

You're placing waaaaaaaay too much importance on what you feel the rogue class is, while ignoring that it doesn't matter because there is enough space within the rogue to allow every halfling rogue in existence to be LG.

Sure, Indy is a rogue, and he punches Nazi's. And he totally takes those relics he found, alone in the Jungle, to the proper authorities, right? He definetly had government permission to go to ancient sites of cultural importance and wasn't just cutting his way through jungles with little regard to the law, right?

You did see the government put the Ark away, right? And wanted to recover the Cross of Coronado to return it to the museum.

There is a reason Rogues were called "Thieves" in the early game. There is a reason that the PHB calls out that most rogues live up to the worst stereotypes of the class. It is because, other than the warlock, the Rogue, as a class, is the most likely to break the law out of every single class in the game. It is a stereotype, just like the Druid being a hippy and the wizard being a nerd. The Rogue is a criminal. Are their non-criminal rogues? Yes, I've acknowledged that REPEATEDLY, but they are not exactly known for being law-abiding citizens with a respect for personal property, now are they? And that is the point that was made. The stereotype vs the expected combo.

There's a reason that none of that is relevant to halflings which can easily, within both halfling AND rogue lore, be LG rogues.

The thief does not have two different thematic biases. That isn't how this works. And I'm foisting nothing off on halflings. Pay attention to the actual arguments please, not your made up ones.

It does, and IS how it works. You even quoted it.

"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."

Let's see. Three that fit the criminal not LG archetype, and FOUR(that's more than three) that have no such bias and can all be LG.

 

[Faolyn]

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.

Rogue/thief has always been sort of an "everything else" class, which is why Van RIchten was a thief back in 2e. They're not warriors and they're not spellcasters, so they have to be rogues. They could be statted up as an Expert sidekick in 5e... but Experts get a bunch of rogue abilities. They just don't have sneak attack. And even if Sam, Merry, or Pippen have sneak attack, it doesn't mean they have to use it.

But yes, there's a difference between a D&D halfling and a Tolkienesque hobbit.

 

[James Gasik]

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.

No, they aren't Rogues. It just goes to show that while Hobbits are naturally gifted with stealth that borders on magical, Halflings are not so talented. Likely because when WotC made the PHB, they didn't want race to be as important as class, and so they were quite conservative with their design.

Granted, even if they had given them such an ability, like say, the ability to use non-detection or invisibility innately, there's a certain subset of D&D players who would reject magical Halflings outright, so it's probably for the best. If you want super stealthy Halflings, you have to go get that fantasy on your own, the game won't give it to you, sadly.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

They just don't have sneak attack. And even if Sam, Merry, or Pippen have sneak attack, it doesn't mean they have to use it.

I'm pretty sure Merry has sneak attack...

 

[James Gasik]

I'm pretty sure Merry has sneak attack...

Well maybe he is a Rogue. Though I think he and Pippin multiclass later.

 

[Irlo]

I'm pretty sure Merry has sneak attack...

It looks to me like he rolled a one and managed to get a crit on the re-roll.

 

[Chaosmancer]

The bad apples are my point. Bad halflings exist in the lore and leave the village. They will both become thieves and fit the lore, so even if you trying and twist thief into a bunch of lawbreakers who only lawbreak, halflings still fit it. The reality is, though, that thieves are every bit as much NOT lawbreakers as they are lawbreakers. And when it comes to adventurers, far more will be of the non-lawbreaking kind than lawbreaking.

So, the stereotypical halfling is the bad apple, law-breaker banished from their village? That's what halflings are most well known for?

Because, well, you spilled a lot of digital ink saying that they aren't best known for that. That they are best known for being good, honest citizens.

This isn't some sort of gotcha "it must be 100% one way" Max. This is literally "Most common stereotype 1 doesn't match with most common stereotype A" You are acting like the fact you can prove criminal halflings exist, or law-abiding rogues exist, that this prevents there from being a dissonance. But you are wrong, because exceptions do not break the stereotypes.

Not many laws in the middle of nature, so druids are even more lawless. As are rascally anti-civilization barbarians. It also doesn't matter. Not one bit. Even if 90% of rogues were lawless, the other 10% could be LG halflings and fit the lore.

You're placing waaaaaaaay too much importance on what you feel the rogue class is, while ignoring that it doesn't matter because there is enough space within the rogue to allow every halfling rogue in existence to be LG.

And still completely missing the point I see. Are Druids none for their law-breaking tendencies? Nope, because they don't have laws in the first place to break. What about barbarians! They follow their own laws, which aren't civilizations laws. And in fact, they pretty much NEVER break those laws. It is a common trope.

Do LG halfling rogues exist? Entirely pointless to the point being made! Which is that Stereotype 1 (Rogues are criminals that steal things) does not match with Stereotype A (Halflings are good honest folk who just want to help). If 90% of all rogues are criminals that break the law, then it is utterly insane that the exception being LG Halfling Rogues is also the most common rogue race combo. Which is literally the point brought up.

You did see the government put the Ark away, right? And wanted to recover the Cross of Coronado to return it to the museum.

Uh huh. And how often did he talk to a government other than the United States about things like going to cultural heritages sites and smashing them to pieces?

There's a reason that none of that is relevant to halflings which can easily, within both halfling AND rogue lore, be LG rogues.

Right. The exact dissonance which was being called out. That you refuse to acknowledge, because it doesn't exist, except that it obviously exists because you have to square the circle to make it fit.

It does, and IS how it works. You even quoted it.

"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."

Let's see. Three that fit the criminal not LG archetype, and FOUR(that's more than three) that have no such bias and can all be LG.

The bias is towards criminal activity. Other things exist. But those other things are not the bias. That's why it is called a bias, not a reality or an unmutable law. And you can't have a bias towards two opposing things. That is the non-existance of a bias, because a bias leans one way. Not both ways. You can't have a bias towards hot and towards cold. That is nonsense.

It is not in any way controversial to say that the stereotypical rogue is a criminal. Why are you fighting so stupidly hard to deny this? No one is saying that rogues cannot possibly be anything other than criminals. Just that the stereotypical rogue that there is a bias to in the class descriptions and peoples conceptions of them, are criminals.

 

[Maxperson]

Rogue/thief has always been sort of an "everything else" class, which is why Van RIchten was a thief back in 2e. They're not warriors and they're not spellcasters, so they have to be rogues. They could be statted up as an Expert sidekick in 5e... but Experts get a bunch of rogue abilities. They just don't have sneak attack. And even if Sam, Merry, or Pippen have sneak attack, it doesn't mean they have to use it.

But yes, there's a difference between a D&D halfling and a Tolkienesque hobbit.

The Witch King got hit by a sneak attack by one of those hobbits.

 

[Maxperson]

So, the stereotypical halfling is the bad apple, law-breaker banished from their village? That's what halflings are most well known for?

Because, well, you spilled a lot of digital ink saying that they aren't best known for that. That they are best known for being good, honest citizens.

This isn't some sort of gotcha "it must be 100% one way" Max. This is literally "Most common stereotype 1 doesn't match with most common stereotype A" You are acting like the fact you can prove criminal halflings exist, or law-abiding rogues exist, that this prevents there from being a dissonance. But you are wrong, because exceptions do not break the stereotypes.

Nor do stereotypes. As badly as you want to ignore it, there is a LG rogue stereotype that Indiana Jones is modeled after. I've seen it in other movies, read it in books, etc.

So it's a fact that the most common halfling stereotype matches a popular rogue stereotype and the existence of other popular rogue stereotypes does nothing to change that.

And still completely missing the point I see. Are Druids none for their law-breaking tendencies? Nope, because they don't have laws in the first place to break. What about barbarians! They follow their own laws, which aren't civilizations laws. And in fact, they pretty much NEVER break those laws. It is a common trope.

Do you have any idea how many trappings of civilization have been destroyed by druids? How many bear animal companions have been illegally taken into taverns and used in fights? How many time they've changed into a bear and attacked someone in town? How many times some lord or official is damaging nature lawfully and been attacked by druids?

If 90% of all rogues are criminals that break the law

They aren't.

Uh huh. And how often did he talk to a government other than the United States about things like going to cultural heritages sites and smashing them to pieces?

Does it matter. LG is a general behavior, not some perfect following of all laws and rules. A person doesn't have to do everything in a LG manner to be LG.

Right. The exact dissonance which was being called out. That you refuse to acknowledge, because it doesn't exist, except that it obviously exists because you have to square the circle to make it fit.

You can't say "right" and then say that there's a "dissonance." I was saying that the lore matches up just fine, because there's plenty of room for both lores to fit together seamlessly.

The bias is towards criminal activity. Other things exist. But those other things are not the bias. That's why it is called a bias, not a reality or an unmutable law. And you can't have a bias towards two opposing things. That is the non-existance of a bias, because a bias leans one way. Not both ways. You can't have a bias towards hot and towards cold. That is nonsense.

Right. There is no bias. The thief was designed to fit both criminals and non-criminals equally.

It is not in any way controversial to say that the stereotypical rogue is a criminal.

There is no THE stereotypical rogue. There are several different major rogue stereotypes. One of them is criminal, yes.