PDA

View Full Version : the merits of halflings



X-39
2016-06-07, 08:09 AM
I'm making a new world and debating whether or not to put halflings in it (not sure if this would qualify as DMing issues rules-wise). I can't see any real reason for them to exist, almost the only real characteristic they have as a race seems to be lack of ambition. That said, I know a lot of people like halflings so I might be missing something. I'd appreciate any advice either way. If I messed up the post somehow please go easy on me, this is my first thread.

avr
2016-06-07, 08:37 AM
Small, sneaky and surprisingly dangerous people are a type of character that many people want to play. They don't have to be halflings but gnomes are less popular and people don't always want to be the ugly gobbos. Even weirder things have less traction, though ratfolk have some supporters.

If it's a D&Dish world something like halflings is a good thing to include.

Belac93
2016-06-07, 08:46 AM
I like them as survivors, first and foremost. They are similar to humans, but feel a need to be everywhere. They will resort to anything to survive, including, and not limited to, cannibalism. You can find them in mountains, jungles, plains, lakes, oceans, underground, anywhere.

X-39
2016-06-07, 11:06 AM
Small, sneaky and surprisingly dangerous people are a type of character that many people want to play. They don't have to be halflings but gnomes are less popular and people don't always want to be the ugly gobbos. Even weirder things have less traction, though ratfolk have some supporters.

If it's a D&Dish world something like halflings is a good thing to include.

My problem with halflings is that everything they're known for is also present in another race. They're everywhere, so are humans, they're mischievous, so are gnomes, they live underground, so do dwarves and Drow. Ratfolk? Interesting.

Thinker
2016-06-07, 12:06 PM
I'm making a new world and debating whether or not to put halflings in it (not sure if this would qualify as DMing issues rules-wise). I can't see any real reason for them to exist, almost the only real characteristic they have as a race seems to be lack of ambition. That said, I know a lot of people like halflings so I might be missing something. I'd appreciate any advice either way. If I messed up the post somehow please go easy on me, this is my first thread.

You could make a similar argument about every fantasy race. You don't really need them - you could substitute cultural bonuses/penalties or implement character backgrounds if all you want is to help individualize characters. The times that races really shine in fantasy and scifi is when they stand in for some group that you want to explore with your world or story. This is particularly true with social issues that interest you. For your halflings, you could decide that you want to explore trucker culture in the US. Make halflings prone to travel and make them well-known throughout the land as people who can transport goods because they control caravans and know the routes pretty well. The halflings might rest in temporary communities come nightfall where they trade stories and hold competitions with one another. Their life is difficult, but it pays well. Now, magical transports are being debuted in some of the cities along the coast that threaten halflings' way of life and will force them to find a new niche just to survive. Now, let's say you wanted to represent firearms enthusiasts. You could have elves stand in for them pretty easily. Make them by-and-large rural and in bygone eras they were prone to encountering hostile foes. Now, give them magic. Unfortunately, the local king wants to restrict use of magic to only those authorized by the kingdom for a couple of reasons - one, it's easier to control the populace that way and two, it reduces the number of magical mishaps. You can give them whatever angle you want - good, bad, neutral and explore whatever features about them you like.

On the other hand, if halflings make you happy, include them. Otherwise, don't.

Balyano
2016-06-08, 01:58 PM
Not sure which edition you're working with but let's look at the 5e racial traits of the halflings.

One type of people you could design from these traits are a kind of culture built around bing big game hunters.
Halflings are small, so deer is like a moose, a moose is like a rhino, i rhino like an elephant, and an elephant is practically a dinosaur to them.

Halflings have the Lucky trait that makes them less likely to suffer a disaster on an attack, save, or ability check. This means a halfing is less likely to screw up attacking that trophy animal, less likely to completely loose the animal they are tracking, less likely to get squished or trampled, less likely to be poisoned, ect.

Halflings have the Brave trait. So an angry bull mad with rage charges, the tall folk panic, the dwarf hits the dirt, the human runs for it, the elf is suddenly ten feet up a tree, and the halfling readies his pointy stick for the right time to bring the beast down.

They have the Halfling Nimbleness trait. This makes fighting such large creatures much more easy as the halfling can dodge about the creatures legs without being trampled.

Lightfoot halflings have Naturally Stealthy, perfect for these insane halflings to sneak into a herd of ferocious bloodthirsty moo cows and use the targets buddy for the ambush.

Stout halflings have spent so many generations getting bitten by venomous game animals that it barely effects them anymore.


Take that and build a culture centered around the hunt, social status is reflected by having large impressive trophies. In the spirit of trophy hunting they would have a much more honest bent to them than I normally see in halflings. No one is impressed by a trophy you didn't earn, so halflings are obsessed with achieving certain things on their own and being resistant to accepting help with certain things.

Knaight
2016-06-08, 02:00 PM
I'd drop them. Fantasy doesn't need any particular fantasy race (and I'm including humans in this), and what does and doesn't get included absolutely should be a setting specific thing. The whole concept of the standard fantasy races can go die in a fire as far as I'm concerned, and if you're feeling like dropping one of them, I say go for it.

bulbaquil
2016-06-08, 03:51 PM
Halflings can serve the same niche as some other race; they just do so in a different place.

Alternatively, dispense with the whole concept of evolutionary niches: Halflings exist - or don't exist - because the gods like/dislike halflings.

Max_Killjoy
2016-06-08, 04:08 PM
I'm not a big fan of "stand-in" races/species, or of "let's explore this aspect of humans by using aliens that takes it to extremes" races/species. I really dislike the whole "violent species" and "greedy species" and "logical species" thing, where they're all just transparent ways of "exploring" something or making some sort of point.

Make each race/species stand on its own, with its own origin and own history and own reasons for being what they're like.

Thinker
2016-06-08, 05:55 PM
I'm not a big fan of "stand-in" races/species, or of "let's explore this aspect of humans by using aliens that takes it to extremes" races/species. I really dislike the whole "violent species" and "greedy species" and "logical species" thing, where they're all just transparent ways of "exploring" something or making some sort of point.

Make each race/species stand on its own, with its own origin and own history and own reasons for being what they're like.

That's a problem in fantasy because outside of "A god did it" there is no reason for any fantasy races outside of human to exist. If all you care about is culture and history, just use humans. It's easier. If you want to present an alien mind, no one would play it because we think like humans.

In folklore, the elfs, dwarfs, goblins, etc. were never the protagonist. They either created a problem for the hero (either intentionally or unintentionally), presented a challenge for the hero to overcome (frequently offering some sort of boon to the hero for overcoming said challenge), or acted as an ally to the hero. So, unless you want to play a supporting character, why bother playing a fantasy race?

Max_Killjoy
2016-06-08, 07:05 PM
That's a problem in fantasy because outside of "A god did it" there is no reason for any fantasy races outside of human to exist. If all you care about is culture and history, just use humans. It's easier. If you want to present an alien mind, no one would play it because we think like humans.

In folklore, the elfs, dwarfs, goblins, etc. were never the protagonist. They either created a problem for the hero (either intentionally or unintentionally), presented a challenge for the hero to overcome (frequently offering some sort of boon to the hero for overcoming said challenge), or acted as an ally to the hero. So, unless you want to play a supporting character, why bother playing a fantasy race?


If that's your standard, then there's no reason to have any non-human characters in any fiction or game ever, especially not as PCs or POV characters.

Good thing that's not my standard, or anything like it.


But then, I know what it's like to have a somewhat "alien mind" compared to most of my own species, so hey.

Thinker
2016-06-09, 09:12 AM
If that's your standard, then there's no reason to have any non-human characters in any fiction or game ever, especially not as PCs or POV characters.

Good thing that's not my standard, or anything like it.

I can't think of an example where having non-human characters improves the fiction of the story or game if the non-human character doesn't represent some generalization of another portion or group of society.

Knaight
2016-06-09, 06:03 PM
I can't think of an example where having non-human characters improves the fiction of the story or game if the non-human character doesn't represent some generalization of another portion or group of society.

Thranx in the Humanx Commonwealth. You can try and retroactively fit portions of human society to their culture and call it a representation of a generalization of that portion, but it doesn't really hold. On top of that, while the Thranx culture does improve the fiction, it's not because of the aforementioned retroactively fit generalizations. A lot of it has to do with what can be said about the humans regarding their reaction to the Thranx, and a lot of that is due to major physiological differences that let the story delve into things like the role of disgust in cultural decision making, or the way technologies, lifestyles, etc. are developed around physiology, or several other things. Them looking like big bugs isn't a generalization of anybody. The cultural differences regarding water that emerged from Thranx breathing coming from lower abdomen holes that are really hard to keep afloat in deep water (which is an obvious difference that is used to ease into deeper themes) isn't based on some generalization of other people either. Even if what you're interested in is just culture and history, there are legitimate uses for non-human species.

With that said, the whole concept of the obligatory inclusion of non human species because of a genre label is a bad one, and the whole concept of the obligatory inclusion of particular non human species (dwarves, elves, halfings, etc.) is even worse. I'd default to not having them unless they serve a particular purpose.

Max_Killjoy
2016-06-09, 06:15 PM
Thranx in the Humanx Commonwealth. You can try and retroactively fit portions of human society to their culture and call it a representation of a generalization of that portion, but it doesn't really hold. On top of that, while the Thranx culture does improve the fiction, it's not because of the aforementioned retroactively fit generalizations. A lot of it has to do with what can be said about the humans regarding their reaction to the Thranx, and a lot of that is due to major physiological differences that let the story delve into things like the role of disgust in cultural decision making, or the way technologies, lifestyles, etc. are developed around physiology, or several other things. Them looking like big bugs isn't a generalization of anybody. The cultural differences regarding water that emerged from Thranx breathing coming from lower abdomen holes that are really hard to keep afloat in deep water (which is an obvious difference that is used to ease into deeper themes) isn't based on some generalization of other people either. Even if what you're interested in is just culture and history, there are legitimate uses for non-human species.

With that said, the whole concept of the obligatory inclusion of non human species because of a genre label is a bad one, and the whole concept of the obligatory inclusion of particular non human species (dwarves, elves, halfings, etc.) is even worse. I'd default to not having them unless they serve a particular purpose.

Neither of the fantasy settings I'm working on has dwarves, halflings, elves, etc... and none of the species/races that do exist are designed as caricatures of some aspect of humans.

Bohandas
2016-10-20, 01:32 PM
Halflings always struck me as forced and out of place. Drop them.

Bobbybobby99
2016-10-20, 07:58 PM
I personally like the idea of halflings as blind amphibian people that lurk in swamps and are obsessed with a single life goal, but that might be just me.

lightningcat
2016-11-22, 09:48 PM
I've always liked halflings, but completely erase any concept of gnomes from any game I run.
So if you can't think of where you want them to fit in your setting, ban the shorties and call it good. I use the same logic for any race, class, or any other concept in a game.

Flickerdart
2016-11-23, 12:41 PM
I'm making a new world and debating whether or not to put halflings in it (not sure if this would qualify as DMing issues rules-wise). I can't see any real reason for them to exist, almost the only real characteristic they have as a race seems to be lack of ambition. That said, I know a lot of people like halflings so I might be missing something. I'd appreciate any advice either way. If I messed up the post somehow please go easy on me, this is my first thread.
When making a decision like this, it helps to keep asking "but why?" until you get back to the most basic level you are willing to challenge. Here, I think the question is this:

Why have different races at all?

Out of setting, this is obvious - the concept of adding a rubber forehead to your human has been part of fantasy since before Tolkien. When mechanics are added into the mix, the reason to have races becomes an issue of maximizing what your character is good at. For people who do not want to work too hard to get into the head of their character, they want a creature that's basically still human but has these ability differences. That's the halfling's role that a gnome or a goblin or a kobold can never fill.

What about in-setting? Logically, species settle where they are best able to multiply (find enough to eat for themselves and their babies, avoid being eaten in turn). There is room for a "jack of all trades" species, that can exist everywhere at a lower population density than a true specialist. Humans already have that, but as mentioned above, the purpose of halflings is to be like humans. This gives you two options, and you may go with both if you want.

The specialized halfling: Crack open your books and you will find jungle halflings, arctic hallflings, desert halflings... Nothing is stopping you from saying "these are the only halflings that exist." Justify their existence that way. Smaller, lighter creatures excel at climbing trees and vines, and short chubby creatures thrive in cold environments (though these can be gnomes). Incorporate their environment and culture into their racial traits - if your halflings are only tree-climbers, then all halflings now have an affinity for heights, and their love of ranged weapons makes sense. Even in other parts of the world, these halflings build tall, and focus their handicraft on flexible objects like slings and cloth (as there is not much in the way of workable wood in a jungle). Their environment has made them jumpy and paranoid (since everything is venomous/poisonous, and tigers could be hiding behind the thick undergrowth). These halflings may be methodical and careful when deciding how to act, but then swift and decisive when carrying out the plan - hesitation may mean death.

The generic halfling: The halfling that shows up everywhere is the halfling people will most want to play, because it's basically a tiny Homo sapiens. You have a few options here to differentiate them while still leaving their mindset largely human. These generic halflings are a young race, and not a race of builders - when their social order developed enough complexity to settle down, all the good areas were already taken. So their technology, their possessions, perhaps even their culture all belongs to someone else. As halflings are small, they take up little space and little food, so they can hop on a ship or ask to stay in a village hut, and are less likely to be denied. Their travels make them valuable sources of knowledge about the world, as well as songs from local and far-off lands. While humans show up somewhere, plant their flag, and start exterminating the locals, halflings have no flag, settlements, or borders. You can make them as gypsy-like as you want, with the obligatory antipathy due to criminal and sorcerous implications.

Stan
2016-11-23, 03:02 PM
If you don't want them, don't feel like you have to. If all D&D settings have the same races, they feel more similar to each other than they should. WOTC feels compelled to shoehorn all their races in every setting to avoid offending anyone but you don't have to follow suit.

Personally, if I'm adjusting races, halflings are usually the first to go. They tend to feel like either Tolkien ripoffs or something too close to kender to be allowed.

Bohandas
2016-11-23, 06:26 PM
The problem with halflings for me is that they don't have a basis in folklore like elves, dwarves, and gnomes, but neitner are they original like warforged. They're pretty much limited exclusively to D&D and Tolkien, and the only reason why they aren't an explicit direct knockoff of Tolkien is due to a court order (to a lesser extent orcs also have a similar problem; IIRC they did predate Tolkien, but prior to him were just an unpopular alternate pronunciation and spelling of "ogre").

It's a bit like if they had arbitrarily decided to include the Morlocks from The Time Machine as a subrace of human in the core rules.

Nifft
2016-11-23, 07:04 PM
Halflings are great if you don't have playable goblins, kobolds, gnomes, pixies, tibbits, or any other Small race.

If you do have at least one other Small race, then you have to ask what niche the Halfling is filling, and if it's really necessary.

In 1e, they certainly did have a niche, but the game has changed pretty significantly since then.

Solaris
2016-11-24, 12:26 AM
The only niche halflings seem to have is "prettier goblins who are more socially acceptable." The eco-adaptability thing I've assigned to elves, the kinship to humanity I've handed to dwarves, and everything else seems a better fit for gobbos.

Personally, I've dropped them and gnomes in favor of a kitbashed goblin race that includes several of the halfling and gnome traits, because between the three of them there's one reasonably functional race. Anyone who complains about skin colors gets mocked for being a racist using terms I've seen used on tumblr.

Bohandas
2016-11-24, 12:33 AM
They had a legitimate niche once?

Max_Killjoy
2016-11-24, 12:35 AM
They had a legitimate niche once?


In the mashup of sources that formed Ye Olde D&D, they filled the niche of "not called Hobbits, nudge nudge wink wink".

Bohandas
2016-11-24, 12:53 AM
That's not a legitimate niche. That's cheap. In many ways it's worse than the pointless flavorless halflings we have now. Plus, it's either a misinterpretation of Tolkien's work or a profou dly bad choice for a player character race as IIRC Hobbits were explicitly an unusually dull race who, with the exception of a small number of members of the Took family (including Bilbo's family who were related to the Tooks matrilinerally IIRC) basically never did anything interesting. Plus, they barely even fit into their own setting (IIRC they just kind of show up out of nowhere at the end of the Silmarillion) it's kind of expecting a lot for them to fit into any other setting.

Max_Killjoy
2016-11-24, 11:44 AM
That's not a legitimate niche. That's cheap. In many ways it's worse than the pointless flavorless halflings we have now. Plus, it's either a misinterpretation of Tolkien's work or a profou dly bad choice for a player character race as IIRC Hobbits were explicitly an unusually dull race who, with the exception of a small number of members of the Took family (including Bilbo's family who were related to the Tooks matrilinerally IIRC) basically never did anything interesting. Plus, they barely even fit into their own setting (IIRC they just kind of show up out of nowhere at the end of the Silmarillion) it's kind of expecting a lot for them to fit into any other setting.


I don't really disagree much with that.

My point was that they're there because it was one more "cool" thing that could be crammed into the mashup setting, there because at some point in the later half of the 70s, someone really wanted to play a Hobbit... and then legal issues. It's a setting that tried to combine Tolkien, Leiber, Vance, etc, into one thing... because "cool".

Nifft
2016-11-24, 12:00 PM
They had a legitimate niche once?

Anti-magic rogue type, just as Dwarf was the anti-magic warrior type.

Gnomes (introduced later in 1e) were the small pro-magic rogue type.


In the mashup of sources that formed Ye Olde D&D, they filled the niche of "not called Hobbits, nudge nudge wink wink". Heh.

That was their marketing niche.

prufock
2016-11-24, 10:44 PM
I made halflings in my setting basically a short-guy mafia. They have a strong sense of loyalty to their own kind, and halflings will go out of their way to help one another.

They'll help out other races too, but they expect something in return; basically, they work on favours.

tantric
2016-11-28, 02:08 PM
in my setting, 'halfling' is a size category, along with 'giant', 'human' and 'demihuman' for various lycanthropes. were-racoons are halflings, were-wolves are humans, were-weasels are demihumans.

Potato_Priest
2016-12-18, 07:40 PM
I'm making a new world and debating whether or not to put halflings in it (not sure if this would qualify as DMing issues rules-wise). I can't see any real reason for them to exist, almost the only real characteristic they have as a race seems to be lack of ambition. That said, I know a lot of people like halflings so I might be missing something. I'd appreciate any advice either way. If I messed up the post somehow please go easy on me, this is my first thread.

Thanks for the question. You've really made me think more about halflings and their psychology, which is a good thing as I like to play them.

A lot of people have been talking about how halflings aren't a good race to include because of their similarity to humans mentally. I don't think that's a good way to look at things. In the real world, we have multiple races of humans who have no natural personality differences, and extremely minor physical differences, yet people are still pretty racist and see race as an important distinction. Can you imagine the difficulties of being part of a group of humans that is just 3 feet tall and not very smart or strong? You would be always ignored, not taken seriously, or taken advantage of, and would develop a different thought process from other humans due to your size and your place in the pecking order. In my experience as a halfling, you're just seen as "that little guy who's easy to beat up," whereas gnomes get a certain level of respect for their cunning and technical know-how. This is an interesting dynamic, and I think that it leads to an interesting race. Perhaps their housing practices (halfling holes lol) are the result of fear of the bigger races, and thus they make holes with low ceilings so as to have a refuge from bullies. Similarly, their halfling bravery could be a sort of natural defense mechanism to help them stand up for themselves against larger folk when necessary, while their lack of ambition would help them avoid conflict most of the time. Anyways, I personally like halflings as a race, but if they don't have a place in your world by all means don't use them.

Thinker
2016-12-19, 12:21 PM
Thanks for the question. You've really made me think more about halflings and their psychology, which is a good thing as I like to play them.

A lot of people have been talking about how halflings aren't a good race to include because of their similarity to humans mentally. I don't think that's a good way to look at things. In the real world, we have multiple races of humans who have no natural personality differences, and extremely minor physical differences, yet people are still pretty racist and see race as an important distinction. Can you imagine the difficulties of being part of a group of humans that is just 3 feet tall and not very smart or strong? You would be always ignored, not taken seriously, or taken advantage of, and would develop a different thought process from other humans due to your size and your place in the pecking order. In my experience as a halfling, you're just seen as "that little guy who's easy to beat up," whereas gnomes get a certain level of respect for their cunning and technical know-how. This is an interesting dynamic, and I think that it leads to an interesting race. Perhaps their housing practices (halfling holes lol) are the result of fear of the bigger races, and thus they make holes with low ceilings so as to have a refuge from bullies. Similarly, their halfling bravery could be a sort of natural defense mechanism to help them stand up for themselves against larger folk when necessary, while their lack of ambition would help them avoid conflict most of the time. Anyways, I personally like halflings as a race, but if they don't have a place in your world by all means don't use them.

This only really matters if it's a focus of the setting - the oppression (or worse) of the halflings, their recovery thereafter, or their place in the world post-recovery. Otherwise, all of that is just window dressing that is likely to be ignored by players and thus is a waste of time to focus on.

White Blade
2016-12-20, 02:07 PM
Halflings fulfilled in Tolkein the role of innocents or every-man characters. Their distinction from humans was their humility and homieness. So, for example, in my setting there are three major human culture groups, all descended from the same set of steppe nomads on horseback. They're either still steppe nomads, the (former) ruling elite of a fractured empire a group of the steppe nomads conquered, or a Carthage-esque mercantile city established by exiles. They're all aggressive on the world stage, they're characterized by the love of adventure, glory, and power.

Halflings, by contrast, don't conquer and they don't want to rule (at least, of the core races they have the least ambition to do so). They treasure hearth and home over adventure, privacy over glory, and friendship over power. And that's very different from how most mortals conduct themselves in the hard scrabble world. They've cross-pollinated with almost every culture group. Their more adventurous members are heads of guilds or merchant caravans, but most of them are farmers or ranchers. And, any time you need unambiguous innocents, BAM: Drop in Halflings and the players trust it. If players want to play some humble no-name from nowhere dragged along by circumstance, I try to leave human open as an option but if they want to play that type's ideal, then they really want to play hobbits.

Of course, in real life humans fill all the roles and there's nothing wrong with cutting out whatever doesn't fit your vision. Realistically, there are probably three or four demi-humans you might need: Subterranean, sea, Sky, and ground. But if you think fantasy races are fun, hobbits have a role to play as the humble or the innocent foil to the other races.