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

Because morality is not a racial trait.
It's all margins. As a people they care incrementally more about people and incrementally less about other pursuits.

As a result they have incrementally better relationships and are incrementally worse at other pursuits.

At the end of the day, it's a worldbuilding lever you can use that is explicit within the existing lore. It's a bummer you don't like it, but it's there.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Halflings would totally pay off the cops. They'd get free drinks and product. The guard and nobles would be their buddies. Halfling love their friends. The illegal deals would be hard to find but the hangout would be well known.

The clean cops who threaten to ruin things would learn about how halflings blend in the crowd and have "accidents".
That’s fine as your idiosyncratic take. It doesn’t follow directly from what the lore actually says, though.
 

They can be very evil thieves and assassins. Nobody would expect them to poison the tea or cake which they prepared quite lovingly for you. They'd be good at sneaking up on passersby, garotting them, and stealing their belongings. I mean, since halflings were built to be the thief race, it's pretty obvious that they'd be excellent thieves, and not just the type that opens locks and listens at doors for the rest of the party. They could be actual criminals.

And before you say that they don't want lots of expensive belongings, remember, that's a racial tendency, and there are always outliers.

And you misunderstood my question. I asked about what sort of evil elves and dwarves are particularly suited for.
I mean big evil all they do is small, they are bit parts the race.
 

Please extrapolate your reasoning that takes you from the above, to the next paragraph.

That does not follow. At all. There is an unexplained jump that apperently seems obviously true to you, but makes no sense on any level to me.
What I mean is the lore says the halflings don't get into the large organizations like nobility or major governance.

So a halfing crime family is more like to join a more powerful human, dwarf, or elf crime family and defer logistics and operations to them.

The Crime Boss will likely not be a halfling. Many underbosses might.
 

What I mean is the lore says the halflings don't get into the large organizations like nobility or major governance.

So a halfing crime family is more like to join a more powerful human, dwarf, or elf crime family and defer logistics and operations to them.

The Crime Boss will likely not be a halfling. Many underbosses might.
Even assuming you're right about the scale to which a halfling crime family may grow, the idea that they'd outsource "operations and logistics" to such a degree that it would endanger themselves is ridiculous for a couple reasons.

1. Halflings are practical and care about their communities, which logically would even include the criminal ones they are members of. A failure to implement practical measures to protect the community goes against existing lore.

2. Non-halfling crime families are like businesses. Incorporating halflings into it is something they would do if they expect to reap the benefits of halflings operating it. A halfling branch of the family that does not act like halflings is dead weight. Your dwarven Dons should be deeply suspicious and critical of a halfling branch of their family that fights straight up, just like they'd be suspicious and critical of a dwarven branch that fights unarmored, unarmed and turns on all the lights..
 
Last edited:

What I mean is the lore says the halflings don't get into the large organizations like nobility or major governance.
No, it doesn’t. It talks about tendencies. Halflings do all the things humans do, just with different frequency and some different motivations.
So a halfing crime family is more like to join a more powerful human, dwarf, or elf crime family and defer logistics and operations to them.
More or less likely =\= won’t happen.
The Crime Boss will likely not be a halfling. Many underbosses might.
Except a halfling makes an excellent Don, and the focus on family, cooperation, diplomacy, and taking care of eachother makes up for any tendency that works against it.

Also, in answer to another claim you’ve made, halflings wouldn’t shy away from making full use of their unique nature in operations and defense. They’d also make full use of thier non-halfling underling’s unique nature.
 

Except a halfling makes an excellent Don, and the focus on family, cooperation, diplomacy, and taking care of eachother makes up for any tendency that works against it.

Also, in answer to another claim you’ve made, halflings wouldn’t shy away from making full use of their unique nature in operations and defense. They’d also make full use of thier non-halfling underling’s unique nature.
The Boromar Clan from Eberron is a great example of a halfling crime syndicate.
 

You might be discussing 5e. I'm discussing Hobbits, which are sadly now called Halflings.

Which tells me the problem doesn't lie with the species itself but with the edition design that has taken away all that made them unique-unusual-interesting.

Al I can say there is, looking to earlier editions for inspiration, Houserules Are Your Friend.

Seems a bit circular from here - the edition design strips away everything that made them special leading to complaints that they aren't special enough.

IF the only thing that made you special was that other people weren't allowed to play rogues and you weren't allowed to be a wizard, then you aren't really special.

Also, yes, clearly the lore and design that doesn't make them feel special doesn't make them feel special, and discussing ways to change that with people is a way to address what we do want. I'm not particularly interested in giving them dwarven toughness, that seems to be a bit unfair to dwarves. I'm not really sure what we could want from "nimbleness" because that is a such a broad and oversaturated area it could be anything. And bonuses to throwing things is just... weird. So your 2e or 1e version of the race also doesn't seem to fit into a modern design. But it is difficult to discuss with you how we could even change things, because you often don't even know what rules have changed. I'm not trying to be dismissive, but I've noticed this a lot where you will say "it works fine for me, becuase I'm not using the rules you are" which... isn't helpful.

On a broad level, I'm sad to say, it's thinking like this which got us into this mess.

Of course people don't like restrictions - but never once do they complain about the corresponding benefits in other areas that balance those restrictions out.

As for "playing the character you want to play", sorry, but just because there's (round numbers) 30 species and 20 classes doesn't necessarily mean that all 600 species-class combinations have to be - or should be - designed as being equally viable; and I posit that doing so would make the game a lesser thing.

Unless all species are made mechanically the same (or very close) a player's choice of either species or class - either one - should IMO strongly influence the choice of the other.

I fundamentally disagree. Nothing about your race determines whether you can worship the gods or worship nature (cleric or druid). Nothing about your race determines if you can devote yourself zealously to a cause, hone your body and mind, or break with the norms of society for the left handed path or for the wilds of the world (Paladin, Monk, Rogue, or Ranger). Nothing about your race determines if you can learn how to fight, or if you throw yourself into fights with a supernatural fury (Fighter or Barbarian). Nothing about your race determines if you can study magic, study engineering, study music, make deals with otherworldly entities or be born with magical powers (Wizard, Artificer, Bard, Warlock or Sorcerer)

Allowing the combinations doesn't make the game lesser, because it tells people that any combination of things is possible and supported.

I actually had experience with the opposite some time ago. Some friends desperately wanted to play pathfinder to do a specific genre of game. I agreed and tried building a character. I had an idea of what I wanted, and picked the race that fit and noticed they mentioned an ability that worked with a specific class, so I started building the character. Only, one of my friends pointed out that despite having an ability directly linked with the class, the race had a restriction that completely ruined any attempt to use that class, and it was completely nonviable. I could have gone forward with it anyways, played that nerfed character, but I didn't I made something that worked. And you know what? I'm still being constantly overshadowed by people who knew the system better and built something better. If I'd gone with my original idea? It'd have been a joke and if I didn't quit, I'd have rerolled a new character.

Needlessly limiting race/class combos or setting restrictions where only certain things are viable, is bad game design for a Tabletop RPG in my opinion. All it does is funnel people into making the same decisions, and punish those who don't.

Where in my view the detriment is the monster species that are taking their place.

Where in my view I see that as nothing but a positive.
 

It's all margins. As a people they care incrementally more about people and incrementally less about other pursuits.

As a result they have incrementally better relationships and are incrementally worse at other pursuits.

At the end of the day, it's a worldbuilding lever you can use that is explicit within the existing lore. It's a bummer you don't like it, but it's there.

And what does "incrementally" even mean in this context? Because, again, the further you push "care more about other people" the more you are just saying "is a good person". And again, putting halflings out as the kindest, nicest, goodest race is not a good design space. Because Morality is not a racial trait.

Honestly, this isn't even a factor of "you just don't like it" it is literally putting halflings on a pedestal. They are too good and pure to care more about X than they care about other people and making them comfortable. Maybe this is just me having that mid-western/Southern influence, but that is just what good people do. And having halflings be the goodest of boys requires then making all the other races look worse. "Why don't those humans care about their fellow man instead of profit." Isn't a story I'm interested in (as a writ-large racial story), but becomes inevitable when you make halflings the race that cares more about their fellow man than profit. Because that means no one else cares as much as halflings do.
 

What I mean is the lore says the halflings don't get into the large organizations like nobility or major governance.

So a halfing crime family is more like to join a more powerful human, dwarf, or elf crime family and defer logistics and operations to them.

The Crime Boss will likely not be a halfling. Many underbosses might.
This is once again more @Minigiant lore that appears to be a ridiculous extrapolation from 5e lore.

You're talking "major governance" like that's what's needed for a crime family. The FBI currently estimates that the Mafia are about 3000 strong and were 5000 strong at their peak in the 1960s (with the population of the US having doubled since then). Counting the associates that's about 50,000 people either in the Mafia or as Mafia associates. Or the total Mafia across the United States of America at its peak was the size of one large town.

A crime family is not "major governance". Even if it was halflings and crime families alike treasure the bonds of family - after all you can trust family. Which means that if you can you keep the leadership in the family. I mean sure you might set up a patsy who enjoys thinking they are the boss so if anyone takes the fall they do.

Why do you do this? Why do you insist on inventing arrant nonsense about Halflings and then claiming that the arrant nonsense you have invented is a problem? And why do you think that your own house rules and your own invented fluff making halflings bad shows anything other than the problem is with the way you use them?

On second thoughts never mind. Goodbye
 

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top