Yes the book came out, yes I got a copy (preordered) no I haven’t read it carefully yet so no you can’t switch to it yet. When I have read it carefully ( sometime this summer) I’ll consider it.
My only complain is making so many of the races Fae-related or having once been native to the Feywilds. So many races now come from the Fae Realms now that it has lost its mystique and appeal for the most part. That said, referencing that many of the Gobinoids have 'escaped' Maglubiyet's grasp fills me with hope that we'll see Faerun become a lot less Tolkien-like in the future, and start playing upon national and religious lines rather than racial ones. It's a trope from the 80's and it needs to go.
I love it, if you research Celtic myth you will quickly see that elves, dwarves, goblins and hobgoblins and several others were considered as fae beings. In fact hobgoblins actually helped out around the home doing odd jobs and chores to help the occupants in return for food treats. So in a way, this book is actually taking the races back toward real world mythical creatures. I’m all for that. Grounding them in actual folklore allows a wealth of real-world cultural stories and beliefs to be incorporated into games and enriches the stories that can be told.
I mean this also depends on the world, so in my homebrew world greenskin races (goblins etc) will never be fae, they have there own deep backstory and are part of a rich culture which means they are not just "evil". I would actually prefer more flexibility to Character creation to allow swapping of pretty much every racial trait and rules allowing anything from flying goblins to a human that can breathe fire with rules in place to ensure balance.
I'm not buying that book and I don't let people use content that I don't own. I don't think I'm allowing non-PHB races moving forward anyhow. I can't really do a good job at incorporating like 60 distinct population groups into my games and if the only meaningful distinction they have in my game is that they get wings or a swim speed, then they should be cut.
It depends on the world but if a player had a great idea for a Goliath, or a Firbolg, you would not allow it?
My only complain is making so many of the races Fae-related or having once been native to the Feywilds. So many races now come from the Fae Realms now that it has lost its mystique and appeal for the most part. That said, referencing that many of the Gobinoids have 'escaped' Maglubiyet's grasp fills me with hope that we'll see Faerun become a lot less Tolkien-like in the future, and start playing upon national and religious lines rather than racial ones. It's a trope from the 80's and it needs to go.
I love it, if you research Celtic myth you will quickly see that elves, dwarves, goblins and hobgoblins and several others were considered as fae beings. In fact hobgoblins actually helped out around the home doing odd jobs and chores to help the occupants in return for food treats. So in a way, this book is actually taking the races back toward real world mythical creatures. I’m all for that. Grounding them in actual folklore allows a wealth of real-world cultural stories and beliefs to be incorporated into games and enriches the stories that can be told.
I mean this also depends on the world, so in my homebrew world greenskin races (goblins etc) will never be fae, they have there own deep backstory and are part of a rich culture which means they are not just "evil". I would actually prefer more flexibility to Character creation to allow swapping of pretty much every racial trait and rules allowing anything from flying goblins to a human that can breathe fire with rules in place to ensure balance.
Same. But I do love that a lot of the racial abilities can be reflavoured very easily without changing either mechanics or intent.
Orc's Adrenaline Rush works like a toned down 'Aggressive' ability the Orc race used to have, and works both to re-balance the race and tone down Orcs in less 'all of X are Y thus you can kill them without worrying about it.'.
Goblinoid Fey Ancestry could easily be reworded into 'Slaves no More', representing an old history of being enslaved by a former Great Evil, hence why some parts of the world still consider them monsters and other see them as normal citizens.
Etc Etc Etc.
At the same point, I am biased because I have been running games with monstrous PCs as normal in most civilised parts of the world since the ... mid 90's? Holy crap, now I just feel old.
I don't know if this is the best place for WotC to see this but as a player since 1st addition, I am perplexed at the dropping of racial ability score modifiers.
First... these are not "races", they are different species (mostly humanoid). They are vastly different physiologically, mentally and culturally. There is no way to justify a halfling or gnome starting out with a 16+ in strength. Humans (men and women) in every setting are equally capable; no mater the ethnicity, culture or religion. That should fulfil the need for equality.
People who are correlating different species in D&D with different human ethnicities should have their heads (and moral compass) examined. Even in Lord of the Rings, Tolkein maps clearly had Mordor positioned where Germany is in Europe, Easterling humans were Ottoman Turks and Southron humans were Italians. It wasn't about skin color... It was from J.R.R.'s experiences in the trenches of WW1 and during the Blitz in WW2. It was not racial bigotry; it was geopolitical animosity.
I understand creating the custom race option in Tasha's, but MoM's elimination of racial bonuses is ridiculous. You just stole the option to use them from everyone. You are extracting an important design element from character creation, just so foolish and oversensitive people don't get offended.
What's next?... Variant human feats for everyone? Do humans get darkvision? Halfling nimbleness for Goliaths? You cannot think it possible to fully equalize the "races" of D&D. Heck... call them "species" or something of the like if it makes you feel better.
If you keep watering down the differences between these species (races), they will all become one race. A noble goal for HUMANity... a boring goal for a fantasy game!
Please reconsider this and reinsert the racial bonuses at least as the first option. Keep the anything goes for the snowflakes. From my experience in this world, there are not very many that play your game. I guarantee you that watering down differences will do nothing to increase the popularity of D&D. Many people play these games to be something different than human. Sometimes more than human, and yes sometimes something less than human.
I don't know if this is the best place for WotC to see this but as a player since 1st addition, I am perplexed at the dropping of racial ability score modifiers.
First... these are not "races", they are different species (mostly humanoid). They are vastly different physiologically, mentally and culturally. There is no way to justify a halfling or gnome starting out with a 16+ in strength. Humans (men and women) in every setting are equally capable; no mater the ethnicity, culture or religion. That should fulfil the need for equality.
People who are correlating different species in D&D with different human ethnicities should have their heads (and moral compass) examined. Even in Lord of the Rings, Tolkein maps clearly had Mordor positioned where Germany is in Europe, Easterling humans were Ottoman Turks and Southron humans were Italians. It wasn't about skin color... It was from J.R.R.'s experiences in the trenches of WW1 and during the Blitz in WW2. It was not racial bigotry; it was geopolitical animosity.
I understand creating the custom race option in Tasha's, but MoM's elimination of racial bonuses is ridiculous. You just stole the option to use them from everyone. You are extracting an important design element from character creation, just so foolish and oversensitive people don't get offended.
What's next?... Variant human feats for everyone? Do humans get darkvision? Halfling nimbleness for Goliaths? You cannot think it possible to fully equalize the "races" of D&D. Heck... call them "species" or something of the like if it makes you feel better.
If you keep watering down the differences between these species (races), they will all become one race. A noble goal for HUMANity... a boring goal for a fantasy game!
Please reconsider this and reinsert the racial bonuses at least as the first option. Keep the anything goes for the snowflakes. From my experience in this world, there are not very many that play your game. I guarantee you that watering down differences will do nothing to increase the popularity of D&D. Many people play these games to be something different than human. Sometimes more than human, and yes sometimes something less than human.
Thank you for your time.
This will go back and forth and back and forth, as someone who has been playing RPG games for 30 years I welcome it because not every Orc will be strong and stupid, not every elf will be intelligent and dextrous. You get outliers, special cases and all sorts. It also means that players are not directed to pick Class first and then Race (which they currently are in many cases). I have been ignoring racial traits ever since I started playing DnD, letting players swap and change as they wished. As for the rest, really, telling someone if they are offended by something they need heads examined really does not help your case. I personally have a number of cases where a player has felt offended by the racial traits, both of PC's and NPC's (it is also why for 15 - 20 years Greenskins in my worlds have been as complex and diverse as all other races, with an equal split of good and bad personalities). The fact that Wizard itself has openly stated they understand the issues and are working to change it indicates that yes, there is a problem that needed fixing.
Thanks for your input. I was probably a little out of line with the "heads checked" comment. Not many will probably see the original comment as I have been sanctioned and the post removed. I was merely expressing concern with a watering-down of fantasy fiction. I have no qualms about DM's such as yourself giving whatever options you want. Heck, that could be called the Gygaxian Principal. In first edition, Gygax referred to the rules as a starting point. Your table, your rules. It wouldn't have harmed anyone to leave the recommended modifiers in the game as an optional rule. Now those who want them will have to fish around through the old works, create tables and issue/explain them to their players.
I still worry about where it stops. Are we perceiving "peoples" without Darkvision as better or worse; or Halfling Luck or any one of a gazillion racial features and traits. Variant Humans get to start with a feat..."Hey! That's not fair!" A +2 here or +1 here on beginning attributes may reflect the advantages or adversities of where the average person from that race starts; but, the character arc through the game can give the being a chance to rise above their origins (i.e.: Ability Score Improvements). The design differences are ultimately hoped to balance or equalize the character creation choices. Some improvements in this area have done wonders for the game. 1st addition was terrible in where it forbid certain races from being certain classes, or drastically limited level. That's not balancing, that crushes creativity. Now, everyone can be anything. If you want to be an Orc Wizard, it may just be a little harder for you. Not a lot of Orc libraries in most worlds. If a player asks for a good backstory and wants to be an orphaned Kobold, raised in Candlekeep, the DMmay give an exception and let him put a modifier on his starting Intelligence. I might even allow that. Creativity and feeding the story by players should be rewarded. I still don't know how you are going to explain a 3 foot, 40 pound starting with a 17 Strength (20 if you roll stats).
I think it is great that your world has Orcs being sometimes intellectually advanced and "complex" as you say. But, what if I do that with every species in the name of enlightenment. Where do you find your villains? Real complexity can be having a common tendency in a creature's society, then finding a story in the outlier... the Dritzt among the Drow. Also, stories showing that the evil orcs raiding the villagers have been pushed off their hunting grounds by encroaching humans or elves. These make fantastic stories with a poignant twist. I like to work within the existing tropes and legends for these thinking points rather than eliminating all villains.
I see very few posts on these thread that disagree with the publishers, so most who agree with me won't make it through either. That means it is not a debate worth having here. This reply may not even make it. Anyhow, thank you so much for engaging civilly and calling me out for the "head examined" thing. I believe that open civil discourse actually fixes problems.
I see very few posts on these thread that disagree with the publishers, so most who agree with me won't make it through either. That means it is not a debate worth having here. This reply may not even make it. Anyhow, thank you so much for engaging civilly and calling me out for the "head examined" thing. I believe that open civil discourse actually fixes problems.
Oh there were plenty, you're just like 6-12 months late. General discussion has had multiple 20+ page arguments about this and we're all just burned out on the topic.
Personally, I'm fine with it. PCs are exceptional by definition, and let's not pretend that +/- 1 in your modifier is defining who you are. Adrenaline Rush, Powerful Build, and Relentless Endurance all describe what it means to be an orc far better than a slightly higher/lower number on your character sheet.
Thanks for your input. I was probably a little out of line with the "heads checked" comment. Not many will probably see the original comment as I have been sanctioned and the post removed. I was merely expressing concern with a watering-down of fantasy fiction. I have no qualms about DM's such as yourself giving whatever options you want. Heck, that could be called the Gygaxian Principal. In first edition, Gygax referred to the rules as a starting point. Your table, your rules. It wouldn't have harmed anyone to leave the recommended modifiers in the game as an optional rule. Now those who want them will have to fish around through the old works, create tables and issue/explain them to their players.
I still worry about where it stops. Are we perceiving "peoples" without Darkvision as better or worse; or Halfling Luck or any one of a gazillion racial features and traits. Variant Humans get to start with a feat..."Hey! That's not fair!" A +2 here or +1 here on beginning attributes may reflect the advantages or adversities of where the average person from that race starts; but, the character arc through the game can give the being a chance to rise above their origins (i.e.: Ability Score Improvements). The design differences are ultimately hoped to balance or equalize the character creation choices. Some improvements in this area have done wonders for the game. 1st addition was terrible in where it forbid certain races from being certain classes, or drastically limited level. That's not balancing, that crushes creativity. Now, everyone can be anything. If you want to be an Orc Wizard, it may just be a little harder for you. Not a lot of Orc libraries in most worlds. If a player asks for a good backstory and wants to be an orphaned Kobold, raised in Candlekeep, the DMmay give an exception and let him put a modifier on his starting Intelligence. I might even allow that. Creativity and feeding the story by players should be rewarded. I still don't know how you are going to explain a 3 foot, 40 pound starting with a 17 Strength (20 if you roll stats).
I think it is great that your world has Orcs being sometimes intellectually advanced and "complex" as you say. But, what if I do that with every species in the name of enlightenment. Where do you find your villains? Real complexity can be having a common tendency in a creature's society, then finding a story in the outlier... the Dritzt among the Drow. Also, stories showing that the evil orcs raiding the villagers have been pushed off their hunting grounds by encroaching humans or elves. These make fantastic stories with a poignant twist. I like to work within the existing tropes and legends for these thinking points rather than eliminating all villains.
I see very few posts on these thread that disagree with the publishers, so most who agree with me won't make it through either. That means it is not a debate worth having here. This reply may not even make it. Anyhow, thank you so much for engaging civilly and calling me out for the "head examined" thing. I believe that open civil discourse actually fixes problems.
I agree that discussion about this makes sense and as WOTC have made clear there is nothing stopping DM's from not using the racial trait rules in MMM. now I understand that for some who don't have the original material it is hard to apply the old racial traits. Whatever works at your table works for you. But I do think freedom of choice is a great thing, personally I would like to have a far broader choice of options, the ability to swap out any trait or ability in a balanced way would be great both for giving a sense of how to make balanced home brew races. But also allowing players to get even more creative, the albino elf who was born without dark vision, the Halfing who is freakishly large and so loses some halfling traits without just being human.
Villains are easy to find, if Humans can be all alignments and provide all manor of villains then so to can the other races, I still have goblin warbands, or Orc tribes who are evil alignment, I just make sure my players know that the world is far more intricate, that Orc warrior you killed because he attacked you, well he had a kids toy in his pocket. I like to throw moral questions at my players all the time in game and many (but not all) encounters have the ability to be resolved without conflict. But yes there are Evil people in my world, just as there can be evil humans, dwarfs, tieflings and every other player race that can be played.
For a sympathetic villian Duregar are to me the best example, as far as they are concerned they where mind controlled by the Mind Flayers, ignored by the rest of dwarf kind as they suffered in slavery. Finally escaped there prison to be shunned by all dwarf society for a perceived weakness that any dwarf clan would have suffered. Stories like that can be told across all the races, but it also allows you to look at the Duregar and ask, are they evil really, or a creation of circumstance. How would they react in my world to certain situations. Who would they form bonds with politically, socially? There are plenty of bad guys in my world, the Etreshan Empire, which, jealous of the land to the south and the materials it contained, struck out and waged a 200 year war on the peaceful, tribal greenskins that lived there, killing or enslaving them, forcing them to turn from peaceful nomadic tribes to war parties scrapping just to survive. One of my current campaigns has seen the players really enjoy being taken on that moral journey, from coming into the campaign thinking "greenskins bad" to now having learnt about the history in my world, taking up the mantle to overthrow the elven emperor who instigated this situation, an emperor who while vain and conceited, is just being an elf and trying to help his own people thrive and survive.
I don't like the Dritzt example, it is a little too obvious, the outsider who is a good drow. I much prefer the Matt Mercer take with the Kryn and the Luxon brining races like the Drow, Goblins, orcs, trolls etc together living under a single religion to exist in a more neutral/good society which has its complications and frustrations.
Now I do limit things, there are campaigns where I will state certain races can't be PC's because it doesn't suit my world. I also do like to work with players, but, that 20 strength gnome, I love stuff like that, it is a magical fantastical world, why can't there be a Gnome with arms of steel :).
I think it is great that your world has Orcs being sometimes intellectually advanced and "complex" as you say. But, what if I do that with every species in the name of enlightenment. Where do you find your villains?
You know, I can find villains in a game that doesn't have anything but humans. Giving nonhumans complexity doesn't mean they can't be villains. It just means they aren't villains by birth, they're villains by choice. Which is way more villainous anyway.
For my players and the limited cases where it affected them, it wasn't a big deal. There are some maddening quirks (like why Fire Genasi no longer see things in shades of red), but that's all it is. I have even let feats get swapped (like Fey Teleportation vs. Fey Touched.) when it made sense.
That's different than asking if Haregon exist in my world. And its different than what the generic hobgoblin background is, or if they are even an option.
I think it is great that your world has Orcs being sometimes intellectually advanced and "complex" as you say. But, what if I do that with every species in the name of enlightenment. Where do you find your villains?
You know, I can find villains in a game that doesn't have anything but humans. Giving nonhumans complexity doesn't mean they can't be villains. It just means they aren't villains by birth, they're villains by choice. Which is way more villainous anyway.
Or they might not see themselves as Villians, the Orc tribe that is struggling to hunt enough food because a human villiage is expanding and clearing out there natural hunting grounds is a really complex story that can lead to different options. One party might just go out and murder hobo the orcs, thats perfectly fine as an approach, they are killing villagers, another might stop, talk and ask why and try to resolve the issue, or another might talk to the orcs, see the villagers as being the instigators of it all and go all Native with the Orcs like Avatar :). Now both sides in that conflict see the other as evil and themselves as good. It is up to the party to walk that line between and decide which route and which side they take and, as a DM, I will just go along for the ride and not try and steer them one way or another.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Yes the book came out, yes I got a copy (preordered) no I haven’t read it carefully yet so no you can’t switch to it yet. When I have read it carefully ( sometime this summer) I’ll consider it.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
This would be an interesting poll.
My players are all super chill so I'm going to let them use whichever one they want. I don't see it being an issue.
Same with any lore changes, we customise all our lore anyway so I just see them as take it or leave it suggestions.
I mean this also depends on the world, so in my homebrew world greenskin races (goblins etc) will never be fae, they have there own deep backstory and are part of a rich culture which means they are not just "evil". I would actually prefer more flexibility to Character creation to allow swapping of pretty much every racial trait and rules allowing anything from flying goblins to a human that can breathe fire with rules in place to ensure balance.
It depends on the world but if a player had a great idea for a Goliath, or a Firbolg, you would not allow it?
I've mostly handled it by not caring because the differences are nearly negligible.
Same. But I do love that a lot of the racial abilities can be reflavoured very easily without changing either mechanics or intent.
Orc's Adrenaline Rush works like a toned down 'Aggressive' ability the Orc race used to have, and works both to re-balance the race and tone down Orcs in less 'all of X are Y thus you can kill them without worrying about it.'.
Goblinoid Fey Ancestry could easily be reworded into 'Slaves no More', representing an old history of being enslaved by a former Great Evil, hence why some parts of the world still consider them monsters and other see them as normal citizens.
Etc Etc Etc.
At the same point, I am biased because I have been running games with monstrous PCs as normal in most civilised parts of the world since the ... mid 90's? Holy crap, now I just feel old.
I don't know if this is the best place for WotC to see this but as a player since 1st addition, I am perplexed at the dropping of racial ability score modifiers.
First... these are not "races", they are different species (mostly humanoid). They are vastly different physiologically, mentally and culturally. There is no way to justify a halfling or gnome starting out with a 16+ in strength. Humans (men and women) in every setting are equally capable; no mater the ethnicity, culture or religion. That should fulfil the need for equality.
People who are correlating different species in D&D with different human ethnicities should have their heads (and moral compass) examined. Even in Lord of the Rings, Tolkein maps clearly had Mordor positioned where Germany is in Europe, Easterling humans were Ottoman Turks and Southron humans were Italians. It wasn't about skin color... It was from J.R.R.'s experiences in the trenches of WW1 and during the Blitz in WW2. It was not racial bigotry; it was geopolitical animosity.
I understand creating the custom race option in Tasha's, but MoM's elimination of racial bonuses is ridiculous. You just stole the option to use them from everyone. You are extracting an important design element from character creation, just so foolish and oversensitive people don't get offended.
What's next?... Variant human feats for everyone? Do humans get darkvision? Halfling nimbleness for Goliaths? You cannot think it possible to fully equalize the "races" of D&D. Heck... call them "species" or something of the like if it makes you feel better.
If you keep watering down the differences between these species (races), they will all become one race. A noble goal for HUMANity... a boring goal for a fantasy game!
Please reconsider this and reinsert the racial bonuses at least as the first option. Keep the anything goes for the snowflakes. From my experience in this world, there are not very many that play your game. I guarantee you that watering down differences will do nothing to increase the popularity of D&D. Many people play these games to be something different than human. Sometimes more than human, and yes sometimes something less than human.
Thank you for your time.
This will go back and forth and back and forth, as someone who has been playing RPG games for 30 years I welcome it because not every Orc will be strong and stupid, not every elf will be intelligent and dextrous. You get outliers, special cases and all sorts. It also means that players are not directed to pick Class first and then Race (which they currently are in many cases). I have been ignoring racial traits ever since I started playing DnD, letting players swap and change as they wished. As for the rest, really, telling someone if they are offended by something they need heads examined really does not help your case. I personally have a number of cases where a player has felt offended by the racial traits, both of PC's and NPC's (it is also why for 15 - 20 years Greenskins in my worlds have been as complex and diverse as all other races, with an equal split of good and bad personalities). The fact that Wizard itself has openly stated they understand the issues and are working to change it indicates that yes, there is a problem that needed fixing.
Thanks for your input. I was probably a little out of line with the "heads checked" comment. Not many will probably see the original comment as I have been sanctioned and the post removed. I was merely expressing concern with a watering-down of fantasy fiction. I have no qualms about DM's such as yourself giving whatever options you want. Heck, that could be called the Gygaxian Principal. In first edition, Gygax referred to the rules as a starting point. Your table, your rules. It wouldn't have harmed anyone to leave the recommended modifiers in the game as an optional rule. Now those who want them will have to fish around through the old works, create tables and issue/explain them to their players.
I still worry about where it stops. Are we perceiving "peoples" without Darkvision as better or worse; or Halfling Luck or any one of a gazillion racial features and traits. Variant Humans get to start with a feat..."Hey! That's not fair!" A +2 here or +1 here on beginning attributes may reflect the advantages or adversities of where the average person from that race starts; but, the character arc through the game can give the being a chance to rise above their origins (i.e.: Ability Score Improvements). The design differences are ultimately hoped to balance or equalize the character creation choices. Some improvements in this area have done wonders for the game. 1st addition was terrible in where it forbid certain races from being certain classes, or drastically limited level. That's not balancing, that crushes creativity. Now, everyone can be anything. If you want to be an Orc Wizard, it may just be a little harder for you. Not a lot of Orc libraries in most worlds. If a player asks for a good backstory and wants to be an orphaned Kobold, raised in Candlekeep, the DM may give an exception and let him put a modifier on his starting Intelligence. I might even allow that. Creativity and feeding the story by players should be rewarded. I still don't know how you are going to explain a 3 foot, 40 pound starting with a 17 Strength (20 if you roll stats).
I think it is great that your world has Orcs being sometimes intellectually advanced and "complex" as you say. But, what if I do that with every species in the name of enlightenment. Where do you find your villains? Real complexity can be having a common tendency in a creature's society, then finding a story in the outlier... the Dritzt among the Drow. Also, stories showing that the evil orcs raiding the villagers have been pushed off their hunting grounds by encroaching humans or elves. These make fantastic stories with a poignant twist. I like to work within the existing tropes and legends for these thinking points rather than eliminating all villains.
I see very few posts on these thread that disagree with the publishers, so most who agree with me won't make it through either. That means it is not a debate worth having here. This reply may not even make it. Anyhow, thank you so much for engaging civilly and calling me out for the "head examined" thing. I believe that open civil discourse actually fixes problems.
Oh there were plenty, you're just like 6-12 months late. General discussion has had multiple 20+ page arguments about this and we're all just burned out on the topic.
Personally, I'm fine with it. PCs are exceptional by definition, and let's not pretend that +/- 1 in your modifier is defining who you are. Adrenaline Rush, Powerful Build, and Relentless Endurance all describe what it means to be an orc far better than a slightly higher/lower number on your character sheet.
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm
I agree that discussion about this makes sense and as WOTC have made clear there is nothing stopping DM's from not using the racial trait rules in MMM. now I understand that for some who don't have the original material it is hard to apply the old racial traits. Whatever works at your table works for you. But I do think freedom of choice is a great thing, personally I would like to have a far broader choice of options, the ability to swap out any trait or ability in a balanced way would be great both for giving a sense of how to make balanced home brew races. But also allowing players to get even more creative, the albino elf who was born without dark vision, the Halfing who is freakishly large and so loses some halfling traits without just being human.
Villains are easy to find, if Humans can be all alignments and provide all manor of villains then so to can the other races, I still have goblin warbands, or Orc tribes who are evil alignment, I just make sure my players know that the world is far more intricate, that Orc warrior you killed because he attacked you, well he had a kids toy in his pocket. I like to throw moral questions at my players all the time in game and many (but not all) encounters have the ability to be resolved without conflict. But yes there are Evil people in my world, just as there can be evil humans, dwarfs, tieflings and every other player race that can be played.
For a sympathetic villian Duregar are to me the best example, as far as they are concerned they where mind controlled by the Mind Flayers, ignored by the rest of dwarf kind as they suffered in slavery. Finally escaped there prison to be shunned by all dwarf society for a perceived weakness that any dwarf clan would have suffered. Stories like that can be told across all the races, but it also allows you to look at the Duregar and ask, are they evil really, or a creation of circumstance. How would they react in my world to certain situations. Who would they form bonds with politically, socially? There are plenty of bad guys in my world, the Etreshan Empire, which, jealous of the land to the south and the materials it contained, struck out and waged a 200 year war on the peaceful, tribal greenskins that lived there, killing or enslaving them, forcing them to turn from peaceful nomadic tribes to war parties scrapping just to survive. One of my current campaigns has seen the players really enjoy being taken on that moral journey, from coming into the campaign thinking "greenskins bad" to now having learnt about the history in my world, taking up the mantle to overthrow the elven emperor who instigated this situation, an emperor who while vain and conceited, is just being an elf and trying to help his own people thrive and survive.
I don't like the Dritzt example, it is a little too obvious, the outsider who is a good drow. I much prefer the Matt Mercer take with the Kryn and the Luxon brining races like the Drow, Goblins, orcs, trolls etc together living under a single religion to exist in a more neutral/good society which has its complications and frustrations.
Now I do limit things, there are campaigns where I will state certain races can't be PC's because it doesn't suit my world. I also do like to work with players, but, that 20 strength gnome, I love stuff like that, it is a magical fantastical world, why can't there be a Gnome with arms of steel :).
You know, I can find villains in a game that doesn't have anything but humans. Giving nonhumans complexity doesn't mean they can't be villains. It just means they aren't villains by birth, they're villains by choice. Which is way more villainous anyway.
For my players and the limited cases where it affected them, it wasn't a big deal. There are some maddening quirks (like why Fire Genasi no longer see things in shades of red), but that's all it is. I have even let feats get swapped (like Fey Teleportation vs. Fey Touched.) when it made sense.
That's different than asking if Haregon exist in my world. And its different than what the generic hobgoblin background is, or if they are even an option.
Or they might not see themselves as Villians, the Orc tribe that is struggling to hunt enough food because a human villiage is expanding and clearing out there natural hunting grounds is a really complex story that can lead to different options. One party might just go out and murder hobo the orcs, thats perfectly fine as an approach, they are killing villagers, another might stop, talk and ask why and try to resolve the issue, or another might talk to the orcs, see the villagers as being the instigators of it all and go all Native with the Orcs like Avatar :). Now both sides in that conflict see the other as evil and themselves as good. It is up to the party to walk that line between and decide which route and which side they take and, as a DM, I will just go along for the ride and not try and steer them one way or another.