D&D General why do we have halflings and gnomes?

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

we have halflings so the bullettes have something to eat.
we have gnomes so the kobolds have someone to hate.

Kobolds are happy to hate anyone and everyone.

 

[Don Durito]

So in conclusions Haflings are an issue for people who can look at the descriptions and extrapolate problems but either can't extrapolate solutions or alternatives, or won't do so for some strange reason of principle?

Or is it that people want people to acknowledge that if you take all these assumptions and add them together they don't make sense rather than going either "Why are you making such assumptions? Or hmmm, I see, but if you add the following to your set of assumptions than we don't have a problem"

For people who don't extrapolate the problems, or who keep extrapolating until they have solutions to problems, there is nothing to be concerned about.

The odd thing here is I would have thought that the people who would even come up with these issues would be people who enjoy worldbuilding - and that if worldbuilding is something you enjoy then....

 

[tetrasodium]

A1: Yes, I 100% agree that monsters exist in 99.9% of every D&D game ever played. We can probably put that to bed as I doubt anyone disagrees.

A2: Here you are skipping ahead. We can't dismiss halflings using luck to avoid bandits and orcs as a poor explanation...when a world may not have halflings encounter bandits and orcs regularly. They do not in my world, as they live in places that are peaceful* that are mostly immune for "raiding smart bands of creatures".

This leaves us with the fauna of the area that they live in. I will grant you that the area most likely could contain wolves/bears/tigers and other beasts from the Monster Manual. As far as how the halflings deal with these beasts...I don't see why it has to be different than any other races village ability to deal with them. In general having a house makes you immune to most beast encounters. A grizzly shows up at your doorstep so you go inside, shut the door, and wait for it to go away. In general beasts are there to find food, and perhaps the halflings have to worry about their goats and chickens getting eaten, but that isn't anything that hasn't been being done since animals were first domesticated thousands and thousands of year ago. One family with some torches and a sling (or thrown rocks) is almost always more than enough to drive off beasts.

All of that is the problem chaos raised & it seems like you agree it's a valid problem so doesn't seem much to discuss there.

B1: I'm not exactly sure what you are saying the halflings as described are (or are not) doing that conflicts with free-will and interacts with cultural stasis. If I had to ascribe a single label for them in the lore it would be CONTENT. They don't feel the need to build monuments, dominate neighbors, establish legacies, or other such aspirations for power. If they get to live a long life on the farm eating rhubarb pies and swapping tales with passers by, that is their best life. I do think that assigning a single label to any fantasy race is much too basic, and leaves MUCH to be desire, however its a simple background on which to build any individual campaign. But I don't think this relates to what you were speaking to.

B1 Free will is a complicated subject that philosophers have debated for as long as we've had philosophers writing things down & probably longer. For our purposes we can stick to applying most [players] are human. The reason all of those advancements in civilization & government occurred was because someone got rich and other people stayed safe while possibly reaping other benefits such as expanded trade new industries & some degree of laws being enforced. Historically that went as far as things like villages not part of the roman empire(village1) sending someone to a nearby village taken over by the roman empire(village2) & negotiating a way for that village1 can also join as taxpaying citizens of the roman empire in order to gain the kinds of benefits in trade/construction/roads/technology/education/etc that village2 gained (links with details were provided). The shire says that either the local feudal lord/empire rep/etc patrols shire lands for free out of the goodness of their heart or that bandits monsters & so on are not driven towards the unpatrolled shire lands people& trade because... well because. The shire might have some patrols or similar, but the resources & technology available to any given village are going to be much lower than those available to a large collective of nearby villages with the benefits of large scale trade/technology transfer/etc.

Interestingly enough this actually causes the monster problems for the shire to grow because chasing off monsters(even intelligent ones) is easier than killing them as you noted. On the wildlife example, I've scared off a bear by throwing a cuban sandwich in it's direction and witnessed a moose destroy a parked unoccupied car. Having a house makes the bear & moose less of a concern yes, but a bandit is much more likely to target a house than an empty field for obvious reasons.

A player or GM can put themselves in the shoes of their pc or J-Random npc to judge things like motivations & such but like the bandits & monsters not fleeing to the relative safety of the shire that plot armor results in an unknowable world where they can not do that.

B2: As I didn't understand B1, I can't add much here.

I think I covered most of B1 up there but B2 touches on a few other areas that were raised. Luck might help if a bear was the biggest baddest monster they might need to worry about, but bandits & intelligent monsters capable of following a map & understanding roads on top of having skills of their own.

Out-of-the-way- implies some level of distance. Yes to a degree being far away from other villages could have helped until they opted out but history shows that merchants were willing to take a two year trip from western europe to asia for the silk road & know how merchants crisscrossed europe in more local routes so the distance needs to be truly astronomical for merchants to not bother. That leaves two possible motivations that a gm or player could try on when putting themselves in the shoes of a pc/npc's mindset, interest & having too perfect of a safe area.

Using interest to avoid the b2 problems for these ultra-distant halflings suggests that these halflings just aren't interested in what the advanced civilization is selling & that runs into big problems with matters of trade because we know they love food so the idea that they would be uninterested in crops or exotic spices grown in distant lands

Using distance alone is saying that halflings have such a perfectly safe far off land that there is a second wave of historical empire building we can model mindsets with. In that case we all know how well that worked out for the poor natives of north & south america when the colonial powers started demanding gold they often didn't have

At the end of the day, as eloquently summed up earlier, Side A believes halfling lore as presented in 5e is either too simplistic OR not feasable. Side B believes its either completely fine, or good enough to get by. I haven't seen one person on this thread arguing there isn't an opportunity for MORE halfling lore. All I have seen is back and forth arguments on what "makes sense in D&D" which is a very personal bar to set as each campaign has very different expectations, play styles, and GM styles. People get entrenched in their views, dig their heels in, and then get so caught up in "winning" they lose track of the fact this is just a discussion of styles in the first place...there is no right opinion.

It would be feasible if things like the athas/talenta/boromar halflings of darksun & eberron were represented making the shire halflings akin to the US great plains states working in some level of unity with the more advanced urban & industrial coastal states but with those more militaristic halflings advanced in different ways. With those halflings not present you run into problems

So, to restate again my personal opinion from the top.

There is nothing about the halfling lore as presented that is troublesome for D&D. It is a simplistic description of a group of beings who are content with their lives as they have been, and find places to live that they are left alone to pursue that life. In my campaign there is a place that allows that lifestyle to work, and I don't have to resort to hiding villages, paths, rangers, magical plants, magical luck, or the powers of the gods to make it happen. There are peaceful areas. The halflings settled there. They are safe from monsters. They defend themselves against the local fauna. They entertain peaceful visitors. They trade with those visitors and occasionally with the nearest "big city", and when something rare truly threatens the entire village they seek help from those friendly towards them, who are most likely under threat from that same force.

except the part where lord muckity muck of the nearby castle never asks his patrol commander about the big blank spot on the map here halflings are located. "Content to live their lives as they have been" is a serious issue we see playing out in real time today with the decline of rural america where kids leave home to get an education & don't return due to lack of employment options. It was a big enough problem for village1 to negotiate with the romans in village2 to become taxpaying roman citizens so hardly a situation unique to modern times. It was even a problem for the natives of north & south america living on reservations despite the children who leave having to face prejudices that nothing suggests would apply to halflings

 

[Oofta]

All of that is the problem chaos raised & it seems like you agree it's a valid problem so doesn't seem much to discuss there.

B1 Free will is a complicated subject that philosophers have debated for as long as we've had philosophers writing things down & probably longer. For our purposes we can stick to applying most [players] are human. The reason all of those advancements in civilization & government occurred was because someone got rich and other people stayed safe while possibly reaping other benefits such as expanded trade new industries & some degree of laws being enforced. Historically that went as far as things like villages not part of the roman empire(village1) sending someone to a nearby village taken over by the roman empire(village2) & negotiating a way for that village1 can also join as taxpaying citizens of the roman empire in order to gain the kinds of benefits in trade/construction/roads/technology/education/etc that village2 gained (links with details were provided). The shire says that either the local feudal lord/empire rep/etc patrols shire lands for free out of the goodness of their heart or that bandits monsters & so on are not driven towards the unpatrolled shire lands people& trade because... well because. The shire might have some patrols or similar, but the resources & technology available to any given village are going to be much lower than those available to a large collective of nearby villages with the benefits of large scale trade/technology transfer/etc.

Interestingly enough this actually causes the monster problems for the shire to grow because chasing off monsters(even intelligent ones) is easier than killing them as you noted. On the wildlife example, I've scared off a bear by throwing a cuban sandwich in it's direction and witnessed a moose destroy a parked unoccupied car. Having a house makes the bear & moose less of a concern yes, but a bandit is much more likely to target a house than an empty field for obvious reasons.

A player or GM can put themselves in the shoes of their pc or J-Random npc to judge things like motivations & such but like the bandits & monsters not fleeing to the relative safety of the shire that plot armor results in an unknowable world where they can not do that.

I think I covered most of B1 up there but B2 touches on a few other areas that were raised. Luck might help if a bear was the biggest baddest monster they might need to worry about, but bandits & intelligent monsters capable of following a map & understanding roads on top of having skills of their own.

Out-of-the-way- implies some level of distance. Yes to a degree being far away from other villages could have helped until they opted out but history shows that merchants were willing to take a two year trip from western europe to asia for the silk road & know how merchants crisscrossed europe in more local routes so the distance needs to be truly astronomical for merchants to not bother. That leaves two possible motivations that a gm or player could try on when putting themselves in the shoes of a pc/npc's mindset, interest & having too perfect of a safe area.

Using interest to avoid the b2 problems for these ultra-distant halflings suggests that these halflings just aren't interested in what the advanced civilization is selling & that runs into big problems with matters of trade because we know they love food so the idea that they would be uninterested in crops or exotic spices grown in distant lands

Using distance alone is saying that halflings have such a perfectly safe far off land that there is a second wave of historical empire building we can model mindsets with. In that case we all know how well that worked out for the poor natives of north & south america when the colonial powers started demanding gold they often didn't have

It would be feasible if things like the athas/talenta/boromar halflings of darksun & eberron were represented making the shire halflings akin to the US great plains states working in some level of unity with the more advanced urban & industrial coastal states but with those more militaristic halflings advanced in different ways. With those halflings not present you run into problems

except the part where lord muckity muck of the nearby castle never asks his patrol commander about the big blank spot on the map here halflings are located. "Content to live their lives as they have been" is a serious issue we see playing out in real time today with the decline of rural america where kids leave home to get an education & don't return due to lack of employment options. It was a big enough problem for village1 to negotiate with the romans in village2 to become taxpaying roman citizens so hardly a situation unique to modern times. It was even a problem for the natives of north & south america living on reservations despite the children who leave having to face prejudices that nothing suggests would apply to halflings

Again with the "halflings don't pay taxes" strawman? Who says that? Where? They try avoid notice from enemies. It's specifically stated that they're good neighbors and get along well with others. Why would the rulers of wherever they settled not know about them? It's another invented issue that has no basis in the lore.

 

[turnip_farmer]

except the part where lord muckity muck of the nearby castle never asks his patrol commander about the big blank spot on the map here halflings are located.

I still can't understand the bizarre mental knots you're twisting yourself into to make the straightforward seem complex. The Glenvale pays taxes.

 

[Maxperson]

I still can't understand the bizarre mental knots you're twisting yourself into to make the straightforward seem complex. The Glenvale pays taxes.

It's necessary for them to win the internet. They have to misstate our positions and refer to them as "plot armor" and other things, because they really have no strong counter.

 

[JiffyPopTart]

except the part where lord muckity muck of the nearby castle never asks his patrol commander about the big blank spot on the map here halflings are located. "Content to live their lives as they have been" is a serious issue we see playing out in real time today with the decline of rural america where kids leave home to get an education & don't return due to lack of employment options. It was a big enough problem for village1 to negotiate with the romans in village2 to become taxpaying roman citizens so hardly a situation unique to modern times. It was even a problem for the natives of north & south america living on reservations despite the children who leave having to face prejudices that nothing suggests would apply to halflings

I said in my synopsis that halflings were content to "trade with those visitors and occasionally with the nearest "big city"" This would imply that the nearest big city knows about the halfling village. If the halflings don't have cities (or even towns) then that must mean that its mainly populated by some other race, meaning some other group knows about the halflings.

It's not a given fact that this would mean that a kingdom (lets assume the "big city" is human ran) would have already attempted to take over or control the halfling village, either by force, threat, or weight of diplomacy. You are making this assumption because of how things happened in actual Earth real-world history. But, my campaign world doesn't follow actual Earth real-world history because its not Earth, it has many many sentient races (all with competing goals), and even something as simple as a romanlike empire would be different in the world depending on if the empire was Human, Elf, Dwarf, Hobgoblin, or Fae.

So, again, my world has areas that are peaceful, and one of those definitions is "not under the strain of takeover by another force". It's not "plot armor" to me to make this so, its just how my world works. I do have areas on my map that we have been calling "death worlds". Areas where it is dangerous to venture, much less try to settle. Those areas also, naturally in my opinion, don't have much settlement going on because nobody wants to live where the orcs go raiding or the manticores go feeding or the demons emerge from underground rifts. It's also the areas you wouldn't find any non-adventuring halflings (unless they were dinner).

As far as your real world description of rural America...you are describing human behavior...which i'm fine with and not arguing about existing. If I were to ascribe one word to human cultures in D&D it would be AMBITIOUS. They are usually depicted as a "young" race yet usually have some of the most powerful civilizations, and in some cases have become the most powerful race on the continent. This is why Youthful Human 1 is likely leave the farm life for the big city so they can get rich and own a trading empire. Being CONTENT may be why Youthful Halfling 1 is fine with moving into a new house next door to ma & pa and raising some goats.

It might be interesting to have a personal conversation about this one day sitting around a table. One thing I have noticed (in real life, not just this thread or board) is that it is more difficult for some people to grok the state of CONTENT than others. Some, like myself, can get to a point where they say to themselves "What I have now is pretty good, as long as things stay this way i'll be happy" and others are always striving to earn, learn, or achieve more. Perhaps my personality type of being CONTENT in my life lets me view the idea of a whole race of CONTENT people as not being any sort of issue??? Regardless, that's a different (and probably IRL) discussion.

 

[Chaosmancer]

So you're end result here is, because the real world works in x ways, so must fantasy worlds..unless magic. You can choose to operate that way, but it's silly. That space you don't think halflings can hide us the same space your Gnomish illusions must hide.

What about my assumptions was silly?

That forests must be either cleared or grown for a village to be hidden inside of it?

That an underground road would appear like a cave if discovered, and lead straight to the village if followed?

That creatures known for living in the wilderness and finding caves and castles in said wilderness might go over a hill instead of following a road? Might travel through a forest enough to find 50 acres of it replaced with a village?

And thank you for acknowledging that yes you are indeed going off book for your humans. Here's the thing if one race gets the benefit of thousands of years of actual history, and the setting guidance, and the other just has the 5 pages of setting guidance, the latter will of course seem diminished in the presence of the former. And by bringing in this extra-setting guidance background, you are doing precisely what you have accused others in this thread of doing when they state things are true that are not in "the book" for halflings.

Yes, I am going off book for humans. I am a human, I think that if humans were supposed to be radically different from humans, they would have told us.

I'm not going off book for dwarves or elves though. So why should I have to go off book for halflings?

 

[Chaosmancer]

Perhaps assorted skills from adventuring, the experience of which has allowed the to "level up" beyond the capabilities of the basic descriptions of their race.

So, they are skilled beyond what we are told, because adventuring gave them the skill to create earthworks, hills and underground roads where none existed?

I think we can both agree that is a bit of a stretch, since most adventurers aren't civil engineers.

 

[Gammadoodler]

So, they are skilled beyond what we are told, because adventuring gave them the skill to create earthworks, hills and underground roads where none existed?

I think we can both agree that is a bit of a stretch, since most adventurers aren't civil engineers.

You find practical camouflage unbelievable but a little guy literally handwaving a village away from sight and, I suppose, memory permanently to be logical.

Here's what it comes down to. D&D settings are fictional. Any political, botanical, economic, scientific, philosophic, or whatever other baggage you want to bring in from real life, you've chosen to carry on your own back. If that baggage prevents you from believing a thing, it's on you.