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

Halflings easily warm to creatures of other races that don't try to do them harm, in large part due to the lack of guile that goes along with their innocent nature. Appearance doesn't matter; what counts is a creature's fundamental character, and if the halflings are convinced of a creature's good intentions, they respond well. Halflings would welcome an orc with a good heart into their company and treat it as politely they would as an elf visitor."

They(most of them) are filled with goodness and innocence and look for that in others, regardless of race or appearance.

The lore about being sneaky isn't good design for being the sneaky guy?

I don't understand how Kender differ from halflings outside of kleptomania being fearless instead of brave. In the context of being the sneaky guy, though, Kender and Halflings are the same.
define goodness?
innocence an absence of guilt or knowledge psychopaths have no guilt and sharks do not know truly what they do.
absences such as innocence is a character trait, not a trait a people can have without losing it really fast nor does it make one good.

being sneaky and being brave tend to be opposites in human thought.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

define goodness?
No. There's no point.
innocence an absence of guilt or knowledge psychopaths have no guilt and sharks do not know truly what they do.
Innocence is not an absence of guilt. It's a purity in this context.
being sneaky and being brave tend to be opposites in human thought.
No. This is false. Frodo and Sam were exceedingly brave to take the One Ring to Mordor. They would just have been stupid, not more brave if they had walked up to the front door instead of being sneaky about it.
 

So Odysseus wasn't brave? Man don't tell him that. He once murdered half the people at a party because they were putting the moves on his wife!
 

No. There's no point.
no, it is simply impossible for anyone to describe good hence making a "the good guy" race impossible, it is like describing colour to a creature without eyes.
Innocence is not an absence of guilt. It's a purity in this context.
pure of what then? give your image you know pure does not have to be good, what is the quote "pure, unadulterated ego" or was it "Believe me, my heart is exceptionally pure. Pure evil to the core."
No. This is false. Frodo and Sam were exceedingly brave to take the One Ring to Mordor. They would just have been stupid, not more brave if they had walked up to the front door instead of being sneaky about it.
brave or ignorant of what they were agreeing to do?
So Odysseus wasn't brave? Man don't tell him that. He once murdered half the people at a party because they were putting the moves on his wife!
I believe him a coward, but I would not try to take his wife, my morals may be beyond comprehension but I do have them.
 

pure of what then? give your image you know pure does not have to be good, what is the quote "pure, unadulterated ego" or was it "Believe me, my heart is exceptionally pure. Pure evil to the core."
Again. Context is they key to understanding. In the context used, purity = good. "Pure of what" doesn't matter. Insert whatever you feel equates to goodness.
brave or ignorant of what they were agreeing to do?
Brave. There can be no other way to look at it. They were chased by Nazgul all the way from the Shire to Rivendell. They knew what they were getting into at the very least on that scale, even if not about the ring growing more powerful the closer they got to Sauron. They were well aware of the latter fact before they entered Mordor and went anyway. They were not ignorant.
 

no, it is simply impossible for anyone to describe good hence making a "the good guy" race impossible, it is like describing colour to a creature without eyes.

pure of what then? give your image you know pure does not have to be good, what is the quote "pure, unadulterated ego" or was it "Believe me, my heart is exceptionally pure. Pure evil to the core."

brave or ignorant of what they were agreeing to do?

I believe him a coward, but I would not try to take his wife, my morals may be beyond comprehension but I do have them.
I guess you would also call Simo Hayha, Carlos Hathcock, or Navy SEALs cowards too, for using stealth, subterfuge, ranged sniping, and ambush tactics?
 

I guess you would also call Simo Hayha, Carlos Hathcock, or Navy SEALs cowards too, for using stealth, subterfuge, ranged sniping, and ambush tactics?
yes, it is a viable and practical idea but cowardly.
Again. Context is they key to understanding. In the context used, purity = good. "Pure of what" doesn't matter. Insert whatever you feel equates to goodness.

Brave. There can be no other way to look at it. They were chased by Nazgul all the way from the Shire to Rivendell. They knew what they were getting into at the very least on that scale, even if not about the ring growing more powerful the closer they got to Sauron. They were well aware of the latter fact before they entered Mordor and went anyway. They were not ignorant.
I do not equate any one thing with goodness as I do fundamentally know why we have for a thousand years struggled to articulate it.
besides if they are good and innocent and as you said inoccent means pure and that is good you have waste words and descriptions for just saying good twice.

I see non of that as brave it reads very differently to me.
I guess you would also call Simo Hayha, Carlos Hathcock, or Navy SEALs cowards too, for using stealth, subterfuge, ranged sniping, and ambush tactics?
Yes I do, I just accept the pragmatism of modern war but I will still call it cowardly, necessary has nothing to do with whether I believe something is brave.
 

I'll do neither one. Good for halflings = LG unless they are homebrewing them. Since nobody said they were homebrewing halfling alignment, in a discussion the assumption defaults to the default of good = LG.

Right, so you are putting words in people's mouths so that you can use that interpretation to smear my point. Because clearly you know what they meant, even if they never said it.
 

I do not equate any one thing with goodness as I do fundamentally know why we have for a thousand years struggled to articulate it.
besides if they are good and innocent and as you said inoccent means pure and that is good you have waste words and descriptions for just saying good twice.
People say the same thing differently all the time in natural language.
I see non of that as brave it reads very differently to me.
If what they did wasn't brave, bravery doesn't exist.
 

Right, so you are putting words in people's mouths so that you can use that interpretation to smear my point. Because clearly you know what they meant, even if they never said it.
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.
 

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top