I made no mention of it not being FR GH etc
I never said you did. But it's pretty clear that your complaint hinges on what you typically think of when you imagine a Duergar. Which almost undoubtedly comes from the Forgotten Realms' or Greyhawk's versions of the race. I was pointing out that the artwork was giving a different take on the race than the standard FR/Greyhawk version.
The disneyfying bit is likely the fact you can be a twee little duergar as a PC. Or Fairy. Or rabbit-person
. . . No. Just . . . no. Did we look at the image? What in that picture was "twee little duergar"? It's just a female duergar standing in a very neutral pose holding a staff with crystals and mushrooms on that. What the hell is "Disney" about that?
If you want to complain about a cutesy short person race in D&D . . . Gnomes are right there.
And D&D has had playable Fairies and animal races for multiple editions. This isn't a new thing. And if it isn't new, it can't be "Disneyfying."
I'm clearly not a great fan of anthropomorphic PC races.
. . . Which have been a part of D&D for decades. Thri-Kreen have been playable since 2e. Aarakocra have been playable since 1e. Mystara had Lupins and Rakasta. Spelljammer had the Giff and Hadozee. I could go on.
Just because you don't like something in D&D isn't an excuse to deny that it's been a major part of the game for decades and to start denigrating an additional race similar to older ones as "Disneyfying" the hobby. You don't have to be a fan of it . . . you just have to be fine with the people that do and not crap on their fun.
And you called me stupid twice. It's 2022 so I will take offence
I did not call you stupid. I don't recall ever calling anyone stupid on this site. I called
the complaint stupid. Those are two very distinct sentences. Someone can make a stupid complaint without being stupid. I know that I've done this in the past before. It's a flaw of your argument, not necessarily a flaw with you. I am not attacking you, I am attacking your argument. If you take offense with this . . . you should probably change how you approach discussions like this.