Are Orcs in the Monster Manual? No and Yes.

The culture war surrounding orcs in Dungeons & Dragons continues with the release of the 2025 Monster Manual. Review copies of the Monster Manual are out in the wild, with many sites, EN World included, are giving their thoughts about the final core rulebook for the revised Fifth Edition ruleset. But while most commentators are discussing whether or not the monsters in the new Monster Manual hit harder than their 2014 equivalent, a growing number of commentators (mostly on Elon Musk's Twitter, but other places as well) are decrying the abolishment of orcs in the new rulebook.

Several months ago, would-be culture warriors complained about the depiction of orcs in the new Player's Handbook. Instead of depicting orcs as bloodthirsty marauders or creatures of evils, orcs (or more specifically, playable orcs) were depicted as a traveling species given endurance, determination, and the ability by their god Gruumsh to see in the darkness to help them "wander great plains, vast caverns, and churning seas." Keep in mind that one of the core facets of Dungeons & Dragons is that every game is defined by its players rather than an official canon, but some people were upset or annoyed about the shift in how a fictional species of humanoids were portrayed in two paragraphs of text and a piece of art in a 250+ page rulebook.

With the pending release of the Monster Manual, the orc is back in the spotlight once again. This time, it's because orcs no longer have statblocks in the Monster Manual. While the 2014 Monster Manual had a section detailing orc culture and three statblocks for various kinds of orcs, all specific mention of orcs have indeed been removed from the Monster Manual. The orcs are not the only creature to receive this treatment - drow are no longer in the Monster Manual, nor are duergar.

However, much of this is due to a deliberate design choice, meant not to sanitize Dungeons & Dragons from evil sentient species, but rather to add some versatility to a DM's toolbox. Orcs (and drow) are now covered under the expanded set of generic NPC statblocks in the Monster Manual. Instead of players being limited to only three Orc-specific statblocks (the Orc, the Orc War Chief and the Orc Eye of Gruumsh), DMs can use any of the 45 Humanoid statblocks in the book. Campaigns can now feature orc assassins, orc cultists, orc gladiators, or orc warriors instead of leaning on a handful of stats that lean into specific D&D lore.

Personally, I generally like that the D&D design ethos is leaning away from highly specific statblocks to more generalized ones. Why wouldn't an orc be an assassin or a pirate? Why should orcs (or any other species chosen to be adversaries in a D&D campaign) be limited to a handful of low CR statblocks? The design shift allows DMs more versatility, not less.

However, I do think that the D&D design team would do well to eventually provide some modularity to these generic statblocks, allowing DMs to "overlay" certain species-specific abilities over these NPC statblocks. Abilities like darkvision for orcs or the ability to cast darkness for drow or a fiendish rebuke for tieflings would be an easy way to separate the generic human assassin from the orc without impacting a statblock's CR.

As for the wider controversy surrounding orcs in D&D, the game and its lore is evolving over time, just as it has over the past 50 years. There's still a place for evil orcs, but they no longer need to be universally (or multiversally) evil within the context of the game. The idea that D&D's rulebooks must depict anything but the rules themselves a specific way is antithetical to the mutability of Dungeons & Dragons, which is supposed to be one of the game's biggest strengths.

 

[Krachek]

I would spend some bucks to see the recording of the internal meetings when they decide to let the Orcs and Drow away.

 

[GothmogIV]

<sigh>. Okay: I think what I find so jarring about this discussion (not just here, but in general over the past few years) is that we are talking about fantasy. These are not real beings. No orcs are actually being stereotyped: there are no orcs. I don't understand why someone looks at a fantasy game, with fantasy creatures, and decides that the real world implications of their existence in a fantasy world is morally wrong if they are portrayed as morally monolithic. They do not exist. They are make-believe monsters in a make-believe world. No real-world person will be hurt by a fictionalized portrayal of imaginary beings in a created TTRPG world. It's just insane to me.

The fact that WotC has given into this is shocking without being the least bit surprising. No orcs in the frigging MM because it's all just too much of a third rail now? Dear God, people. Freaking chill.

 

[Scott Christian]

What might be lost here, is the underpinning of the entire argument: The stat block is accompanied by a description; narrative detail that describes the "monster" in question. I think what some people seek, is that write up - what are orcs? The 2024 PHB description makes them everything: living in caves, living on a farm, living in a desert, living on the plains, living in a city, living as an adventurer, living as a static bump. (This of course is paired with the softening of Gruumsh.) In a sense, it makes them humans and no longer orcs.

This dichotomy, some players have the need to have an orc be everything, and some player bases wanting the orc to be describes as something other than human (such as a simple stat block for the orc baker) are what D&D is actually about. Anyone who wants a stat block doesn't seem to mind new types of orcs. I think, deep down, some people just want the base orc clarified.

And we all get the hypocrisy and double-talk of sales. And to be fair, Crawford's caveat was (and will be), creatures that were fey, but have spent so long on the material plane become un-fey, and therefore, humanoid. Yet still retain a bit of their fey seems like a fair compromise. Elves are fey or not. Goblins are fey and will definitely become non-fey when they make them a PC option. The same will be true for many of the stat blocks in the MM.

 

[Umbran]

<sigh>. Okay: I think what I find so jarring about this discussion (not just here, but in general over the past few years) is that we are talking about fantasy. These are not real beings.

There are these things, called "allegory" and "metaphor". Fantasy is full of them.

 

[DEFCON 1]

They do not exist. They are make-believe monsters in a make-believe world. No real-world person will be hurt by a fictionalized portrayal of imaginary beings in a created TTRPG world. It's just insane to me.

Do you really have such a hard time grasping the idea that real people relate to unreal things all the time? That people see themselves reflected in the media they consume? Every single type of person in the real world talks about "representation"-- seeing themselves within their media-- in other words, seeing themselves in "make-believe". That's like one of the hallmarks of science fiction... showing off real-world issues through the lens of a fantastical world.

Not to mention which... everything "make-believe" is written and created by real people-- which means a real person has put their real knowledge and real emotions and real intentions and real influence into something "fake". So just how "fake" can it actually be? You might not see yourself reflected in the media you consume (although you probably do, you just don't realize it)... but don't fault all the other people for whom they can easily see real-world reality reflected in fake-world imagination. Because that's pretty much how we quantify the quality of something make-believe like that... just how "real" is it? And how much does it reveal "truth".

 

[Belen]

The simple way to avoid any of this controversy would have been just to have a template or a brief list of species specific abilities to paste onto the bandit, gladiator, or whatever statblock - for orcs, halflings, dragonborn... whatever. It's a shame about orcs though honestly in my opinion. I really loved the various expanded orc statblocks from the original Volo's Guide. I'm glad we have books like Flee Mortals on D&D Beyond now as well - as I can pull some really cool statblocks for orcs and others from there as well.

My biggest gripe with the new MM though is the organization. I hated it in Mordenkainen's Monsters of the Multiverse and I hate it here. Red Dragon under "R", Blue Dragon under "B" etc. They say it's for new players and dms but that makes 0 sense. New players and DMs have been figuring it out for 40+ years now. Having demons, devils, giants, etc as a category just makes way more sense.

In spite of those complaints, I still like what I've seen of the book overall. The statblocks are nicely done and the little random tables (in the spirit of the excellent Skerples Monster Overhaul) are fantastic. I also am loving the artwork that I've seen so far for the most part (sphinxes got done dirty though imho... I much prefer the older versions which lean more into mythology than these new magical kitties that we have now).

DDB first design. This is idiotic because a new DM would not know all the devil types etc.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

These are not real beings. No orcs are actually being stereotyped: there are no orcs. I don't understand why someone looks at a fantasy game, with fantasy creatures, and decides that the real world implications of their existence in a fantasy world is morally wrong if they are portrayed as morally monolithic. They do not exist.

Mod Note

That would be great.

…if only those writing the monster descriptions didn’t use descriptions & characterizations lifted whole-hog from real world bigoted stereotypes. This has happened several times over the game’s history. And a number of your fellow ENWorlders have even been so kind as to post receipts here on multiple occasions.

So howzabout not opening that can of worms any further? Thanks.

 

[Laurefindel]

<sigh>. Okay: I think what I find so jarring about this discussion (not just here, but in general over the past few years) is that we are talking about fantasy. These are not real beings. No orcs are actually being stereotyped: there are no orcs. I don't understand why someone looks at a fantasy game, with fantasy creatures, and decides that the real world implications of their existence in a fantasy world is morally wrong if they are portrayed as morally monolithic. They do not exist. They are make-believe monsters in a make-believe world. No real-world person will be hurt by a fictionalized portrayal of imaginary beings in a created TTRPG world. It's just insane to me.

The fact that WotC has given into this is shocking without being the least bit surprising. No orcs in the frigging MM because it's all just too much of a third rail now? Dear God, people. Freaking chill.

Because although they are made-up, people identify to them because…

1) the creator makes it clear that there is a direct relation with a certain type of people or ethnic group. The harm may not have been intentional but the direct relation was.

2) the community makes it clear that there is a direct relation with a certain type of people or ethnic group. The direct relation may not have been intentional but the community (or part of it) use it intentionally.

3) certain types of people or ethnic groups see a clear relation with the description of the fantasy species or ethnic group and take offence because this relation is drawn through derogatory stereotypes.

Oftentimes I think this is overplayed and unequal demographically and geographically, but it is a real issue and if WotC wants to avoid such offences, they must approach all demographics equally. While I don’t agree with many of their policies in that respect, I wouldn’t want to be in their place…

 

[Krachek]

I can imagine the high council voting for the fate of the Orcs and the Drows.

The members of the council are:

The Arch mage master of the DEI arcana.
The devil lawyer who represented the interest of the King Hasbro.
The famous bard from the college of eloquence who knows all the social media gossips and trends.
The banker
The king’s jester who like to tell story abouts Orcs and Drows, but he have no votes, he is only there to serve the tea.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Well, I might as well bang my drum again because why not? Speaking personally... once again I find myself reiterating the thing I say all the time... which is that the game mechanics do a horrible job of distinguishing characterization... and everyone would be a lot happier if they just relied on their own use of narrative and flavor to create uniqueness instead.

What does the Orc have in the 5E14 Monster Manual that is supposedly uniquely 'Orc'?

Aggressive. As a bonus action, the ore can move up to its speed toward a hostile creature that it can see.

That's it. Yep... what makes an Orc and Orc is that its one special "species game mechanic" is pretty much exactly the same as a Rogue and a Monk. All three make a Bonus action Dash. Which means that a Gnome Monk is mechanically pretty much the same as an Orc-- they both can move faster that most other people. Heck, they both even have Darkvision (if someone wanted to make the claim that that's the second thing that makes an Orc and Orc.) So where exactly is the uniqueness of the Orc creature coming from?

Because obviously, a Gnome Monk and an Orc are different, right? So why would we think that? Well... I'm willing to bet it's because how the DM plays the Orc during the narrative part of game that will be the actual thing that makes the creature distinguishable from any other creature in the game, not the statblock. The DM won't embody and play a Gnome Monk the same way they would represent the Orc in the narrative world of the game even though they both can Dash with a Bonus action. They will both be played exceedingly differently. Which is how it has always been and always will be.

But the game mechanics though? An AC, attack roll, damage, saves, darkvision, a two-handed weapon, some javelins, a +2 in Intimidation, and you can Dash as a Bonus action. That's it. That's your "Orc". Pretty much no different than any other monster in the book. And certainly not worth all the hand-wringing that this statblock doesn't appear in the 5E24 MM in my opinion.