Well, for starters your definition of "humanoid" is too broad. You are listing monstrosities (minotaur, chitine), aberrations (mind-flayer), giants (ogre, troll), elementals (azer) and plants (vegepymy,myconid). Further, its haphaardly applied; why is a minotaur a humanoid but not a medusa, why an ettin and not a hag? Lastly, you added several subraces (duergar, drow, shadar-kai) as well as their base race (elf, dwarf).
As to your highlight, again they are disinengious. Goliaths are tribal (they are nomadic wanderers) but lack any of the other traits. However, Githyanki and hobgoblins apparently aren't "violent by nature", nor are halflings "cowardly and thieving".
It was purposefully broad, hence why I explained it. The issue is less "type humanoid" and more "human-esque beings" which include plant people and giants.
Not haphazardly applied per se. I left Medusa out because they are not generally a race. In 5e lore they are corrupted women who misused their beauty. They can be a race, so perhaps I should have included them but I've very rarely seen them as a race. Meanwhile, the base Minotaur's origin is also corruption (via cannabalism and barbarism) but we have also received an explicit race for them, and a different origin.
Ettins are again, a race of beings. Hags are as well, but they are fey. You might have noticed I also didn't include Dryads, Sprites, Pixies, Satyrs, Giants and Succubi. They feel like they fit a different part of the world to me. Perhaps I should have included them, but Giants are singular within themselves, like Dragons, and most of the Fey are storybook beings.
Also, my highlighting was not disingenuous. All five options were an "or" that is why I explicitly stated "presented as either" so being tribal alone counts. You'll also note I also highlighted Aarcrockra and Centaurs, who seem to be tribal only and nothing else this was following what I said.
Halflings are not cowards and thieves by nature. In fact, halflings have a trait called "Brave" and they are generally presented as very generous and hospitable.
Hobgoblins as "inherently violent" is debatable. They could be, but they are also presented as the "honorable enemy" trope. Meaning that they can be reasoned with. Much like Duergar and Drow, you could reasonable expect to have an alliance with them.
Oh, and on having both Elves and Drow, or both Dwarves and Duergar... yes. Obviously these are two very different groups of people. Different innate abilities, different cultures, different just about everything.
Oversimplifying. First off, grimlocks are a generic take on Orwell's morlocks and has little in common with the others, who are different takes on mythological giants. There is some overlap, but at the very least they fit different mechanical elements (being different CRs, having some different abilities, coming from different areas).
So... I said I was oversimplifying. So, thanks for acknowledging what I said.
And while their origins may differ, no one is really going to care that Grimlocks came from H.G. Wells (not sure why you thought George Orwell was their originator) while the others came from types of giants.
And, actually, the rest of your differences are fairly wrong. For example, looking at the wiki:
Ogres -> Favored Terrain Hills
Ettins -> Favored Terrain Hills and Mountains
Hill Giants -> Favored Terrain Hills
Cyclops -> Favored Terrain Hills and Mountains.
Trolls -> Favored Terrain Mountains
Only the Grimlock is different, being Underground
So, they are all in the same general area. In fact, in the foothills of a mountain, in a cave, you could logically encounter any of them.
CR range is an incredibly poor measure, but looking 2, 4, 5, 6, 5, 1/4, so the majority of them are between 4 and 6. with only two outliers.
And abilities... Blindsense, Two heads, Regeneration, or poor depth perception. That's it. That is the vast array of different abilities. And most of them are passive, only the Troll really offers a tactical difference to the players.
Oh, let me try.
Wizards wiggle thier fingers to cast spells
Sorcerers wiggle thier fingers to cast spells
Warlocks wiggle thier fingers to cast icky spells
Clerics wiggle thier fingers to cast healing spells
Druids wiggle thier fingers to cast nature spells
Bards wiggle thier fingers and sing to cast spells
Congratulations, you have realized that all of them are spellcasters. You forgot to include Paladins, Rangers, Some Monks, Eldritch Knights and Arcane Tricksters.
You'll note I hope that this category of classes has a specific name, and despite only having a single trait in common, we recognize this category as separate.
I wonder why we don't want to acknowledge a category with... six traits in common.
Elves are a species that look like humans but have pointed ears.
Dwarves are a species that look like humans but have long beards.
Halflings are a species that look like humans but are short.
Gnomes are a species that look like humans but are short, have long beards and pointed ears.
Half-orcs are a species that look like humans but have tusks.
Half-elves are a species that look like humans but slightly less pointed ears.
Yep, that is why we put them in the category "Humanoid" as a special type of individual. You missed a lot of them, but it is a very large category.
Again though, only a single trait in common was enough to recognize a group. But six traits in common isn't?
D&D is a fantasy RPG that uses funny dice.
Pathfinder is a fantasy RPG that uses funny dice.
C&C is a fantasy RPG that uses funny dice.
DCC is a fantasy RPG that uses funny dice.
Lamentations of the Flame Princess is a fantasy RPG that uses funny dice.
FATAL is a fantasy RPG that uses funny dice.
Oh hey, you found the category "Fantasy RPGs" and even named it. And recognized that most RPGs include the use of multiple, strangely shaped dice.
Anything can be made redundant if you strip it down enough.
Right, but how much did I strip down?
What is the actual difference between an Ettin, Ogre, Hill Giant and Cyclops? Not just "Higher CR" but what are our actually serious differences? Ettins have two heads and Cyclops have one eye?
Well replace Sahuagin with orcs and you have drowned orcs. Similarly, goliaths aren't savage raiders by the common lore. Further, an adventure with grimlocks is going to very different than one with lizarfolk, goblins, or gnolls.
Right, Sahuagin are aquatic, because we needed a primitive, tribal, hyper violent group of raiders in the water as well as on land?
I already acknowledge that goliaths aren't savage raiders.
And sure, Grimlocks could be a little different... but are they different enough? I've pretty much only seen them once. And why have Troglodytes and Lizardfolk? What is the reasoning to have both of them?
None of this though has refuted my point; you see redundancy where I see variety. I can use different monsters (even in the same role) to avoid the "yawn, more orcs?" element that playing for years. I'd rather have more options than less, and the fact that Monster books are some of the top sellers says there is an appetite for MORE monster types, not less.
And, despite all your protests, you didn't even touch on the major point.
60% of the them checked at least one of the boxes. Most of them checked multiple boxes.
Why are DnD players the only ones to ask for fewer options? Because we have so much overlap we have to strive incredibly hard to differentiate them. While most fandoms don't have that many options to begin with.
Sure, you could have savage tribal hyper violent gnolls instead of savage tribal hyper violent orcs or savage tribal hyperviolent Ogres or savage tribal hyperviolent Sahuagin. But do we really need more of them?
Just like I could have Dragons that breath fire, ice , poison, acid, lightning, force, color, thunder, psychic energy, slashing blades... but at some point... I have dragons. Do I need more? Do I need a dragon that breathes piercing spikes and is evil and hoards money? I've got so many choices for dragons, what would I even do with more of them?
We have so many different savage tribes of violent raiders who have primitive weapons and customs. Do we really need more? Or should we actually look into having less?
dnd.wizards.com
