# Are little people worth having in a setting



## Peregrine (Sep 8, 2017)

A fictional "race" of little people?

I am not thinking about hidden little people such as trows or househould spirits such as brownies, I am thinking about little people with their own society, laws, clans...

How can such such race can coexist with physically superior races?
Its hard for me to imagine a civilization ruled by little people.


----------



## Svrtnsse (Sep 8, 2017)

That depends on what you mean by _little people_.

Edit: 
It also depends on what you mean by _worth having_.


----------



## Ireth (Sep 8, 2017)

What do you mean by "little people"? Fantasy little people like hobbits/halflings or dwarves, or humans with dwarfism like we have in real life? Also, define "worth having"?


----------



## Saigonnus (Sep 8, 2017)

Depends on what purpose they serve in the story. If it just for bling, then I would say it would be pointless to include them. 

If, however, they have their own detailed culture and part within the story you are telling, if they make it more interesting, then by all means, go for it. Though I would make the recommendation that they be designed to fit well in the world, not simply thrown in willy-nilly.


----------



## Peregrine (Sep 8, 2017)

Saigonnus said:


> Depends on what purpose they serve in the story. If it just for bling, then I would say it would be pointless to include them.
> 
> If, however, they have their own detailed culture and part within the story you are telling, if they make it more interesting, then by all means, go for it. Though I would make the recommendation that they be designed to fit well in the world, not simply thrown in willy-nilly.



Maybe its bling because little people are common in fantasy and I was influenced by the popularity of them.
I see many fantasies having at least one "race" that is small, its very common in fantasy that at least one of the races is a small race.

I imagined in my setting something like this.
There is only one race of little people, the dwarfs (I know that this has association with dwarfism, I just prefer that way).
They are named dwarfs because I wanted a general term that describes little people, for example there are red dwarfs in space, dwarf elephants and people with dwarfism are called dwarfs.
They are mostly a pastorialist society, most dwarfs are shepherds or goatherds. They can be compared to Vlachs in real life who were known for being shepherds.
They live in mountains and hills. They have their own "clans". Not all dwarfs have beards, mining and smithing is not their primary activity. They do not have underground cities. They are a scattered people like Vlachs.

A shepherd society is kind of a culture, but its not enough to be considered a culture by me, its more like a way of life.


----------



## Svrtnsse (Sep 8, 2017)

Peregrine said:


> A fictional "race" of little people?
> 
> I am not thinking about hidden little people such as trows or househould spirits such as brownies, I am thinking about little people with their own society, laws, clans...
> 
> ...



You mean like they're physically small? 

I'm thinking sure, they could add flavor to the world. They may not rule great civilisations, or even small ones, but they could have their own societies. They could have a role to fill in the world in which they exist.


----------



## Peregrine (Sep 8, 2017)

This.

I haven't thought what is the "purpose" of their existence. I am not sure whether to include them just because they are popular and just because they are physically different from humans. I need a good reason. In the #5 post I wrote how I imagined these little people. But still for me they seem a underdeveloped "race".

I am open to constructive criticism about this. Saigonnus said if its just for the bling its not worth it and I agree with that.



> I'm thinking sure, they could add flavor to the world.



How can they add flavor?


----------



## Svrtnsse (Sep 8, 2017)

Peregrine said:


> I am open to constructive criticism about this. Saigonnus said if its just for the bling its not worth it and I agree with that.



For sure. If you don't have a reason to put them in, then it's probably better to avoid it. 

I'm thinking that when it comes to world building, the best reason to include something is because you want to. If you do, you'll come up with good reasons for it. If you're not passionate about having little people in your setting, don't worry about it. How important they are to the setting will be directly proportionate to who passionate you are about including them. If you don't care about having them as a part of your setting, they're probably not going to be very interesting and you'll probably do better focusing on the things you're passionate about.


----------



## Saigonnus (Sep 8, 2017)

I have been world building on an idea surrounding a society of little people as well, in a post-apocalyptic setting with old west tech level. Magic exists, but tech has stagnated to a 19th century level for most things. 

Human existed, but died out during the apocalypse, leaving them as the only inhabitants of their world. I may include small pockets of survivors, given how resilient humans are, but as of now, I have no plans for it.

The Akari are nearly as adaptable as humans in where they can live, and are traders, farmers, fishermen, crafters, whatever they need to be. 

Contributing to the Akari is their principal concern, they ostracize (even to the point of banishment) those who  DON'T contribute in any meaningful way, but they help those who, for whatever reason, cannot do much. (Old age, injury, disability etc.)


----------



## pmmg (Sep 8, 2017)

Well, just sayin, to whatever the tallest race is on a particular world, all the other races are smaller. So, if size has the most to do with whether a group of beings can coexist or control their own territories, us human types might not really fair that well against giants and ogres.

And I know you did not mean it to sound this way, but things can exist even if we don't understand their purpose. I cant seem to find a purpose for all the insects that make their way into my house, and perhaps they should rethink their choices before they enter, but yet...more than few make attempt the endeavor.

Why have little people?  I think often these fill a role of being the most vulnerable and the most in need of protection, and thus, in that way, the most innocent. And so, when the quest is put upon them, they become the most unlikely of hero's in the quest. And we can all cheer when the little guy finally wins the day. (Or, they could just be a sub-in for farm boys.)

But you know, I don't have gnomes or dwarves or hobbits in the world I created. There is no over-arching reason to include any race. Heck, the world as we know it does not seem to have those staples either. Adventurous tales can include anything, or not anything, you want. If these don't fit in the world as you imagine it, leave them out.

Though, I will add, the hobbits of the shire, or the Peck's in willow did not make me question whether their societies could exist, I just kind of took that as a given that they could. I am sure I would do so again if I saw them appear in a fantasy world. Little green people like Yoda though, that's totally unacceptable.


----------



## Peregrine (Sep 8, 2017)

I share this viewpoint.

Can you please answer my Neanderthals thread?


----------



## skip.knox (Sep 8, 2017)

I have gnomes in Altearth. As will all the other races, I took their core characteristics and asked: where would they fit? what would they do? 

What I came up with is a bit off the beaten path. In Altearth, gnomes are something like faithful servants. As a people they value service. They have some native skills, especially with woodworking (think joinery), but they have wound up being agricultural workers. Gnomes naturally gravitate to the communities of others--humans and dwarves, primarily. They don't view what they grow as being "theirs" on which they pay a tax to their overlords; rather, they view the land and its bounty as belonging to the other community (human or dwarf), of which they get to keep a sufficient and honorable amount. In return, the larger community is to protect them, not only physically but also at law and in disputes. It's a symbiotic relationship. Elves don't build cities or towns, so you rarely find gnomes in association with them.

Gnomes also form personal bonds with individuals. In France this is known as _compagnage_, a status highly respected by gnomes. 

Gnomes could never build their own civilization. If their larger community is destroyed, the gnomes will migrate to another. As you might guess, gnomes are rather open to exploitation. If this happens, they will simply leave. As humans and dwarves became increasingly dependent upon gnome labor, this happened less often. Unfortunately, orcs enslave gnomes whenever they encounter them. Trolls just kill them.

So, there's at least one example of how little people might fit into a larger world. Give them a place and a function, and they'll do fine.


----------



## Heliotrope (Sep 8, 2017)

Does anyone know why Tolkein made his main character a Hobbit? Why did Tolkein invent Hobbits? 

I'll tell you  

Tolkein and CS Lewis of "The Chronicles of Narnia" were buddies in University. Lewis had already written Narnia, and his Buddy JR thought it was great and we telling him about this bedtime story he had been telling his children, which was the basis for "The Hobbit". Lewis loved the story and told Tolkein he should try to publish it. So Tolkein did. 

But why a Hobbit? Why a "little person"? 

Because it was a children's story. The whole point of the story was that it was meant to be engaging for small children and it was meant to have that "even tiny little people (like you) can be a hero. You don't have to be a big strong man, or a elf with magical powers to be a hero," theme. 

He purposely made the Hobbit small and furry and non-threatening because they were supposed to appeal to children. Children were supposed to immediately identify with the main character because he was small and insignificant and "nothing special" just like how they feel. 

That was the point of Tolkein using "little people". 

Now, different races and using little people has become synonymous with "Fantasy", but writers aren't taking into account what purpose they offer to the story. They are just including them because they are "supposed to". 

So my opinion is _ don't include ANYTHING that doesn't serve a direct purpose to the plot or theme of the story._ Period. 

If you wasn't to include little people in your world, think long and hard about why they are there.


----------



## Peregrine (Sep 8, 2017)

> Now, different races and using little people has become synonymous with "Fantasy", but writers aren't taking into account what purpose they offer to the story. They are just including them because they are "supposed to".



This.

You're right about the last thing, some authors make the mistake of including a race of littlemen just because its popular or they supposed to.
I fell for the same trap and now I do not think I am supposed to have a race of little people in my fantasy.

In summary, *nobody is supposed to add something just because its popular and little people do not define fantasy*.


The Hobbit was a completely different book from LOTR, Tolkien did not take it seriously there as LOTR, there were even trolls named Bert, Tom and William. And Tolkien was just playing with that story, whereas LOTR is a serious work.


----------



## psychotick (Sep 8, 2017)

Hi,

I'm going to depart a little from the others here. Yes I agree, don't include a race of little people just because "you're supposed to" or it goes with the genre. But also don't exclude them just because they serve no purpose. What purpose do humans serve? (In reality or in your story.) Being simply part of the world build is enough of a reason for a people to exist. And as your story progresses you can add other things to them which add to their importance to the work.

The only proviso I would make is that if their small physical stature makes them vulnerable to being wiped out, you have to come up with a reason why they haven't been. Eg they have magic? They can appear and disappear in the blink of an eye?

Cheers, Greg.


----------



## Peregrine (Sep 8, 2017)

psychotick said:


> Hi,
> 
> I'm going to depart a little from the others here. Yes I agree, don't include a race of little people just because "you're supposed to" or it goes with the genre. But also don't exclude them just because they serve no purpose. What purpose do humans serve? (In reality or in your story.) Being simply part of the world build is enough of a reason for a people to exist. And as your story progresses you can add other things to them which add to their importance to the work.
> 
> ...



Without humans, a story would be a fable, what are you going to write about without humans or any sapient being? About penguins living their monotonous lives and chasing fish?


----------



## Steerpike (Sep 8, 2017)

A purpose may be defined broadly. It may be as simple as the way you envision your world, and the "flavor" you want to achieve with your setting, is one that is helped by having little races. That's a perfectly valid purpose and reason to have them.


----------



## Devor (Sep 8, 2017)

I rather agree with Psychotick.  There are many groups of people in the world that don't affect us normally.  Sometimes it's okay to include something to just "fill out the world," so long as you play it into that role.  If that's the only reason you have halflings (or whatever), don't spend six pages explaining how they live.  But even as just a spare detail it can fit the right setting.


----------



## Demesnedenoir (Sep 8, 2017)

Heliotrope said:


> He purposely made the Hobbit small and furry and non-threatening because they were supposed to appeal to children. Children were supposed to immediately identify with the main character because he was small and insignificant and "nothing special" just like how they feel.



Hmm, I'll nitpick. They are small just like children, but they also consider themselves "special" just like children, living in a self-centered society, one might argue is as delusional as the narcissism of a child. Entering the great big world of Mordor and war is... maturation... the realization of just how puny you are. Hobbits are insulated and special, as children are, and therefore identifiable to all of us, our childhoods. Not insignificant until reality chases them on big black horses and stabs them in the dark.

Although the Hobbit is admittedly lighter, goblins and spiders trying to eat you is still a heck of a wake up call.

One could have all kinds of fun with this. LOL.


----------



## psychotick (Sep 8, 2017)

Hi Peregrine,

I said what use are humans to a story - not sapient beings - the two aren't always the same. Read Watership Down? So why do you need a race called humans? What use are they? You only need someone whose head you can get into. Rabbits would do just as well.

So should Watership down have done without humans altogether? Are they of no use to the story? Or do they make the world build and so should be there for that reason? That's my point.

Cheers, Greg.


----------



## Corwynn (Sep 9, 2017)

Personally, I would be hesitant to include a race purely as background fluff. You don't necessarily have to write a story from the viewpoint of one of them, but they should have some impact on the story, if only a small impact. If your race is only ever tucked away in the background and only mentioned in passing, one may well wonder why you bothered to include them. I myself get bitten by a desire to include a new race in my setting now and then, but I always go back to my five core races because they are the ones I am interested in examining in depth in my stories.

There is one race in my setting that bears a passing resemblance to dwarves, being short and stocky, but the resemblance ends there. I didn't set out to create a race of "little people", and I've never really thought of them that way. I combined traits that I was interested in, without worrying too much if they fit a particular archetype.


----------



## Steerpike (Sep 9, 2017)

Corwynn said:


> Personally, I would be hesitant to include a race purely as background fluff. You don't necessarily have to write a story from the viewpoint of one of them, but they should have some impact on the story, if only a small impact. If your race is only ever tucked away in the background and only mentioned in passing, one may well wonder why you bothered to include them.



Why have them, then? For one, to give the sense of a full and complete world that exists outside of the confines of your story. To make the setting seem more like an authentic place.


----------



## elemtilas (Sep 9, 2017)

I'd only mention one point: it's true that a reader might wonder why you only mention a race in brief passing. But I look at that as an opportunity to explore them in a later story! So don't throw them out or ignore them entirely just because they don't have a starring role in thÃ¬s story. It may well be two or three stories down the line they will come to the fore or at least be more fully explored.

It's kind of a teaser. Let your reader wonder why you mentioned the halflings in passing! Someday, maybe, that curiosity will be satisfied.


----------



## FifthView (Sep 9, 2017)

Peregrine said:


> How can such such race can coexist with physically superior races?



I think this question is packed with assumptions.

Our world history is replete with examples of peoples developing in isolation for long periods before encountering "others."  If we break that down into a consideration of "non-people"...well, our history is also full of examples of species developing away from our view. When these come into contact with more developed societies, bad things can happen—but not always to the point of extinction. Assimilation can happen, also.

Additionally, a fantasy world with fantasy customs can make a huge difference. Imagine a human population that has a myth about their own beginnings—

"We were much smaller in the Beginning, going about our business, not troubling anyone. When the orcs showed up, we were almost utterly destroyed as a people. Many of us were. We went into hiding, found this new land. We grew stronger. When the orcs returned, we were ready for them."

—and these people meeting the little people for the first time and viewing them as something of a kindred people. Of course, within a human population, you have many options for variation. Some might think these little people are shameful, a reminder of past weakness, undeveloped. Others might think the little people are nearer the purity and innocence humans once possessed and will protect them. How these forces and other forces act upon the relationship over a hundred or two hundred years after this "first contact" could lead in many directions.

I understand and agree somewhat with Heliotrope's view, also Psychotick's. I think it comes down to focus, how much time you spend on a given element of your world. The more time you spend on it, the greater the focus, the more you need to consider how that element adds to the story. If it has little to do with the story, you should probably leave it as background information, maybe even something mentioned once in casual conversation or read in a book while searching for the things that _really_ have something to do with the story.

That said, I don't think "because people say you are supposed to include this" is very important as a motivator. I suppose I could theoretically give a tiny bit of weight to that motivator if you are writing something that very clearly belongs in a very tight, small genre, for instance if you are writing a story set on Middle Earth, heh. Otherwise, I think you still need to consider whether the existence of little people fits your world, regardless of whether you give a lot of focus to them or only mention them in passing. If not, don't include them.


----------



## Devor (Sep 9, 2017)

elemtilas said:


> I'd only mention one point: it's true that a reader might wonder why you only mention a race in brief passing. But I look at that as an opportunity to explore them in a later story! So don't throw them out or ignore them entirely just because they don't have a starring role in thÃ¬s story. It may well be two or three stories down the line they will come to the fore or at least be more fully explored.
> 
> It's kind of a teaser. Let your reader wonder why you mentioned the halflings in passing! Someday, maybe, that curiosity will be satisfied.



Not with little people, but I've had this happen within a single short story.  The more you have to work with the more your imagination opens up.


----------



## Steerpike (Sep 9, 2017)

FifthView said:


> I think this question is packed with assumptions.
> 
> Our world history is replete with examples of peoples developing in isolation for long periods before encountering "others."



Not only that, the world is replete with physically inferior species co-existing with physically superior ones.


----------



## Svrtnsse (Sep 9, 2017)

I wrote a story a while back (as well as a novel even longer ago) that didn't feature any humans at all, but only the anfylk people. That's the name for "little people" in my setting. 

The size of them weren't really an issue then, more that they had different habits, like not wanting to stay in a room above ground floor and such.


----------



## elemtilas (Sep 9, 2017)

Devor said:


> Not with little people, but I've had this happen within a single short story.  The more you have to work with the more your imagination opens up.



Exactly! (Yet another piece in the anti-too-much-worldbuilding campaign!)

Big well developed world = more creative space to tell stories from!


----------



## Mythopoet (Sep 11, 2017)

Consider how prevalent "little people" are in the mythology and folklore of many countries. Human beings have been fascinated by the idea of little people for millennia. Then consider how popular they have been in modern fantasy literature. People are STILL fascinated by this idea. So yes, if you enjoy writing about them, I think they are definitely worth it. However, _only_ if you enjoy it yourself. As a general guideline, I don't think you should ever include anything in your world just because you think you should due to ideas of tradition or popularity.


----------



## skip.knox (Sep 11, 2017)

Every time I read the subject line I react the same, so I'm going to add this:

are little people worth having in a setting?
are people worth having in a setting?
are dwarves worth having in a setting?
are elves worth having in a setting?
are vampires worth having in a setting?
are gelatinous cubes worth having in a setting?
is anything worth having in a setting?


----------



## Svrtnsse (Sep 11, 2017)

There's also a different definition of "little people" which is what first came to mind when I read this, and which also is relevant to storytelling and setting. That definition is the one of little people as common people, regular people, the people who make up the background crowd. Those who do the everyday, non-glorious, plain old regular work. 

People like Joe Average. 

Are they worth having in a setting?

I know this wasn't what was meant in the original post, but it's still an interesting question.


----------



## skip.knox (Sep 11, 2017)

I think ordinary people are especially useful in story telling, for they can provide a contrast with the larger-than-life folks of the main story line. Think of the gents at the pub in Hobbiton at the beginning of the LoTR. They provide some world information, plus set the skeptical, stay-at-home mentality against which Tolkien casts the protagonists.

To take a completely different example, in Raymond Chandler's _The Big Sleep_ there are two good uses of ordinary folk. The first happens when Marlowe goes into a small bookstore that is across from the one he's investigating. He talks with the woman who works there. She gives us another good glimpse at the sideways conversation Chandler is so fond of, but she also gives Marlowe a description of the man he's after. She also helps confirm that the bookstore across the street is some kind of front.

The second case is more memorable. It's Harry Jones. Here is Chandler's description of him.
"He was a very small man, not more than five feet three and would hardly weigh as much as a butcher's thumb. He had tight brilliant eyes that wanted to look hard, and looked as hard as oysters on the half shell. He wore a double-breasted dark gray suit that was too wide in the shoulders and had too much lapel. Over this, open, an Irish tweed coat with some badly worn spots. A lot of foulard tie bulged out and was rainspotted above his crossed lapels."

Harry moves the plot along, but he also winds up as an incidental casualty, which helps cement for the reader just how vicious are the bad guys in this story.

Now, in both cases, Chandler could have dispensed with these "little" people. But they serve to keep Marlowe from getting too close to the truth too quickly, they both provide a bit of color and atmosphere, and they both let us see the hero in action in a way different from encountering Big Bads.

So yeah, there is definitely a place for such.


----------



## Svrtnsse (Sep 11, 2017)

I'm very much in favor of paying attention to ordinary people, both when world building and in stories.

My thinking is that at the very least regular people help setting the bar for what is considered normal within the setting you're creating. Even if your story isn't about regular people you can use them as a contrast to measure your heroes by.


----------



## Solusandra (Oct 15, 2021)

Heliotrope said:


> He purposely made the Hobbit small and furry and non-threatening because they were supposed to appeal to children. Children were supposed to immediately identify with the main character because he was small and insignificant and "nothing special" just like how they feel.


According to Tolkien's notes on the subject, they were supposed to represent the English, not children.


----------



## Almyrigan Hero (Oct 18, 2021)

I mean, they aren't _not_ worth having? There're plenty of roles and tropes that fit 'little people' well (stealth, agility, low-resource subsistence) but there are also other ways to portray those things. Sure they might suffer a bit in physical strength as a tradeoff, but it's not as though physical strength is everything when it comes to humans and humanoids, and you could always give them _slightly_ higher proportional strength to close the gap a bit more.

If you want 'em, add 'em. Even if the plot doesn't hinge on their existence, having one village the heroes visit be populated with dwarves is harmless flavor at worst.


----------



## Solusandra (Oct 18, 2021)

Almyrigan Hero said:


> Sure they might suffer a bit in physical strength as a tradeoff, but it's not as though physical strength is everything when it comes to humans and humanoids,


Until you get past blacksmithing and into machines doing most of your work, it kind of is though. I mean, settings with little people tend to have magic, so the issue gets sidelined in fantasy, but how much and how hard you can work means _*AN AWFUL FREAKING LOT*_ to whether you survive harsh environments, lean times, the farming era and predators more than a quarter your size.


----------



## Almyrigan Hero (Oct 18, 2021)

Solusandra said:


> Until you get past blacksmithing and into machines doing most of your work, it kind of is though. I mean, settings with little people tend to have magic, so the issue gets sidelined in fantasy, but how much and how hard you can work means _*AN AWFUL FREAKING LOT*_ to whether you survive harsh environments, lean times, the farming era and predators more than a quarter your size.


I don't know, if normal-sized humans could survive as hunter-gatherers in Africa, where lions, crocodiles and elephants exist, without walls (much less machinery,) where you can't even rely on enough rain to keep the grass green, is there really anything stopping medieval halflings from settling down as shepherds in pastoral hill country where wolves might be more or less the top of the food chain? I'm not saying things like size and strength *literally don't matter,* but I definitely feel there are at least environments of... shall we say, "proportional" threat to what we already know full humans are capable of surviving.

Granted they'd probably still never achieve large-scale civilization, at least not without extensive trade, but the OP's question is 'could and should they feasibly exist.' I believe the answer is "yes," at least by fantasy logic, and especially with the proviso that they might've started as normal humans and gradually shrunk over time due to settling territory where getting mileage from resources is more important than fending off large-to-midsize predators. Or, if you want to have more fun with it, maybe they actually care for _very large_ livestock, that both protects them from predation and is inconvenient to raise in the walls of more developed settlements. Maybe that's where trade comes from, maybe they get grain and tools in exchange for wool and ivory (and/or scales and/or whatever else.)


----------



## Saigonnus (Oct 19, 2021)

Almyrigan Hero said:


> I don't know, if normal-sized humans could survive as hunter-gatherers in Africa, where lions, crocodiles and elephants exist, without walls (much less machinery,) where you can't even rely on enough rain to keep the grass green, is there really anything stopping medieval halflings from settling down as shepherds in pastoral hill country where wolves might be more or less the top of the food chain? I'm not saying things like size and strength *literally don't matter,* but I definitely feel there are at least environments of... shall we say, "proportional" threat to what we already know full humans are capable of surviving.
> 
> Granted they'd probably still never achieve large-scale civilization, at least not without extensive trade, but the OP's question is 'could and should they feasibly exist.' I believe the answer is "yes," at least by fantasy logic, and especially with the proviso that they might've started as normal humans and gradually shrunk over time due to settling territory where getting mileage from resources is more important than fending off large-to-midsize predators. Or, if you want to have more fun with it, maybe they actually care for _very large_ livestock, that both protects them from predation and is inconvenient to raise in the walls of more developed settlements. Maybe that's where trade comes from, maybe they get grain and tools in exchange for wool and ivory (and/or scales and/or whatever else.)



Actually, there were a couple of strains of ancient Humans that were literally of a height with halflings; mainly due to what was available for food in the region; so they were somewhat localized to parts of Asia? I believe.

As for your other point, I think that if they have the same intellect and resourcefulness as Humans, then they would be able to overcome any natural obstacle that nature throws their way, and thus, there would be no reason they couldn't found a civilization; even a largely agrarian-based one as you imply. Also, who's to say that they are agrarian like your prototypical Hobbits. Maybe like Humans, they are adaptable and can wear many hats so to speak, so would have all of the necessary skills of building great cities. That is assuming of course that the ability to build and maintain large cities is the "benchmark" for a civilization.

I imagined them for one of my worlds as a mixed-agrarian society that are more like druids in temperment; working with nature; instead of against it. Do they build traditional cities? Not really. Do they have large communities of citizens living and working in close proximity? Yes.

Much like Hobbits, mine reside below the arcing roots of the massive trees, and they build downward into the earth instead of upward into the sky; leaving nature relatively untouched (aside from footpaths, animal pens, fields for crops and a few above ground farming constructions). The average community is somewhere around 4000 people; organized by family clan-holds, but is spread out over a sizable area so it doesn't resemble the cities of the western valley; with its stone walls and castles.


----------



## Solusandra (Oct 19, 2021)

Pygmy's in africa and Negrito in South america and Taron in Myanmar are all 3-4 feet tall, breed true and have their own societies. Like those affected by dwarfism, they're not any less intelligent than the local population of normal sized people, but they have an absolute hell of a time maintaining civilization above tribal subsistence due to their low strength and stamina. Presumably European dwarfs could have the same, but unlike the other three they prefer living in the societies of big people typically being entertainers, because any physical job is hell, according to Peter Dinklige. 

Fantasy makes so many things so much easier.


----------



## Saigonnus (Oct 19, 2021)

Solusandra said:


> Pygmy's in africa and Negrito in South america and Taron in Myanmar are all 3-4 feet tall, breed true and have their own societies. Like those affected by dwarfism, they're not any less intelligent than the local population of normal sized people, but they have an absolute hell of a time maintaining civilization above tribal subsistence due to their low strength and stamina. Presumably European dwarfs could have the same, but unlike the other three they prefer living in the societies of big people typically being entertainers, because any physical job is hell, according to Peter Dinklige.
> 
> Fantasy makes so many things so much easier.



If they are just as smart, then there is no reason they can't make up for their lack of strength some other way. All three of those peoples have severe geographic limitations; (the Taron live in the mountains; the African pygmys in the desert, and the Negritos are island dwellers; i.e. rocky, volcanic soil) so subsistence farming just doesn't work well enough to support a large population base, or much livestock; and obviously, without both, a western style civilization is; for all intents and purposes, impossible. Imagine if they had the most fertile land in the world (or at least something better), in a better geographical location, and with it, the capability of raising livestock; allowing them to consume more protein. They might still be 3-4 feet tall, but be much stronger; or they might even become taller, more like a Dwarf.

Besides, you can make your little people sized like a Halfling, and still be nearly a strong as their larger counterparts. In AD&D, halflings only take a -2 penalty to strength, which means they can have up to 16 (you use a score between 1 and 18 for most things) without magical augmentation; that would be enough for any job they'd have to do in regards of physical labor, combat, construction, mining etc. Even if they were strictly average (9-12); they'd still be strong enough for most things.


----------



## Solusandra (Oct 19, 2021)

What about Europes dwarves then? They've existed as part of pretty much every European culture for as long as we've been recording history. Why'd they never make their own town outside of myths? Lots of myths of little folk cities and nations in europe. Never any evidence, but great stories.


----------



## Saigonnus (Oct 19, 2021)

I actually believe that they exist (even to this day), but are rare enough that they never had and probably will never really have suficient population to set off and start their own civilization. I think they were just part of the Human civilization; because technically, they are Humans not "Dwarves" per se. 

Many things from fantasy (like Albinism, Vampirism and Were-wolf syndrome) come from real conditions that afflict people; but most are rare. I think the same is true of the "legends" of European Dwarves.


----------



## Solusandra (Oct 19, 2021)

I was referring more to the disconnect between literal dwarves like Dinklidge and his 200K cousins in the EU and the lack of dwarven societies. They didn't get stuck in the mountains, a desert or an island. Though for the pygmy's, I hardly think you could call the congo a desert.


----------

