Re: 'hobbit' generic/scientific term now that should be used

On Mon, 4 Nov 2024 07:07:35 -0000 (UTC), David Chmelik
<dchmelik@gmail.com> wrote:

'Hobbit' is a generic/scientific term now that should be used.  For over
20 years, science refers to ancient small humans as 'hobbits', which might
even fit some current-day people.  So, Dungeons & Dragons should just re-
add the term.  Most/all my D&D groups used the term.
>
Of course, D&D can't re-add terms 'balrog', 'ent', 'nazgul', etc., which
are in first edition, replaced in second edition (literary edition, not
ruleset edition, which didn't change).

"Troll" is the term I would apply to this.

There was no Balrog in 1e (it was a Type VI demon, ex: "Balor"), nor Ent
(it was Treeant), nor Nazgul.

--
Zag

No one ever said on their deathbed, 'Gee, I wish I had
spent more time alone with my computer.' ~Dan(i) Bunten