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.

 

[Yaarel]

Justice for the poor Ogrillons when?

In this scenario, the Ogrillons are mindless zombies. Humanoids punished by being transformed by "foul" (necromantic?) magic into a golem of Shadowfell undeath. They are not quite dead, however.

Borrowing from the archetype, these "orc-ogres" are brought from the Underworld (Hades aka Orcus) to punish oath-breakers. There can be certain families among Orcs and Ogres, who know the magic of creating Ogrillons. If the oath-breakers are actually criminals warranting a death penalty, the families might not even be Evil. They might be more like executioners, while the Ogrillon is sent on tasks to fix help fix the evils done by the criminal, or at least protect the community from other threats.

If the Orc community had a political treaty with Nonorcs, and the Nonorcs violated the treaty in a serious way, that would be grounds for unleashing Ogrillons against the treaty violators. This in turn could explain why Orcs gained a reputation for being unhuman monsters among the Nonorcs.

Meanwhile, "misunderstandings" can also be a premise for encounters with Ogrillons. Of course, Evil factions that these Orc and Ogre necromancers participate in might use these Ogrillons for Evil purposes. In any case, these Ogrillons are a serious threat, but are killable, being no longer Humanoid, and in this understanding no longer sapient.

 

[Distracted DM]

Well that's just the thing. I'm seeing a lot of written outrage here about changing Goblins to Fey or removing ability score bonuses from Species, changing Race to Species etc...

Mostly the argument seem to boil down to "I prefer how this was all handled before in earlier editions".

Is that even relevant for new people? Not a rhetorical question, I'm seeing a lot of arguments saying that WotC's Monster Manual decisions are objectively harmful to the game and to new comers (not talking about how the book is organized, that's a debate about editorial and layout decisions, for example, yes I agree that it would have been nice if they had a page in the new MM to summarize species traits that you may want to tack onto NPC stats).

It's probably not a big deal for new DMs- they're not going to be looking for old stuff.

Your adventure says Duergar? The book says use a Spy statblock.

I imagine the issue might only come up in future, once new DMs have been running for a while and start to think "hey, why does the PC species get these powers but the NPCs don't? Seems kind of weird and generic." At which point, there'll probably be a new 2026/27 book released that'll include species templates to lay on top of these generic statblocks to make them more unique :')
"Give duergar NPCs enlarge and invisibility, give orcs drop-to-1-hp feature," etc.

Separate thought: with this ?genericization? of NPCs, does this enhance the idea that PCs are outstanding folk? Not ALL Duergar get grow/invis, not ALL tieflings get fire resistance and rebuke, etc? It's your outstanding PC that gets them, everyone else is just some mook.. I guess unless they're literally nom-humanoid, like goblins and aarakocra.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I think it does, yes. Another idea I dislike greatly.

It's probably not a big deal for new DMs- they're not going to be looking for old stuff.

Your adventure says Duergar? The book says use a Spy statblock.

I imagine the issue might only come up in future, once new DMs have been running for a while and start to think "hey, why does the PC species get these powers but the NPCs don't? Seems kind of weird and generic." At which point, there'll probably be a new 2026/27 book released that'll include species templates to lay on top of these generic statblocks to make them more unique :')
"Give duergar NPCs enlarge and invisibility, give orcs drop-to-1-hp feature," etc.

Separate thought: with this ?genericization? of NPCs, does this enhance the idea that PCs are outstanding folk? Not ALL Duergar get grow/invis, not ALL tieflings get fire resistance and rebuke, etc? It's your outstanding PC that gets them, everyone else is just some mook.. I guess unless they're literally nom-humanoid, like goblins and aarakocra.

 

[billd91]

Sometimes it's fun to wrestle with moral complexities. I don't view D&D as one of those times.

D&D needs several varieties of humanoid-type monsters with a modicum of organization and cunning, which are also wearing obvious "enemy uniforms" and have "kill-on-sight" flags. I don't care what combination of biology, culture, and magic gets me that combination, but they need to exist.

Well, don't go fretting too much. One hand giveth as the other taketh away. As orcs fortunes have risen, other monsters slide into comfortably "kill with extreme prejudice-ability" like the ogres and ogrillons whose origins have become tied to evil magic and deities and thus don't have the icky connotations of them being evil just because they're lazy, cruel examples of brutal brawn lacking cleverness and compassion. Now, they're magically evil. I think you're likely getting plenty of options for black and white morality.

 

[TheMercile]

My vote goes for... keep the traditionally evil monsters as evil monsters. It's a shame the corporate guys are trying to soften D&D to the extent of just selling more XYZ.

I was attracted to dungeons and dragons because I liked monsters as a kid. If you watch the Lord of the Rings movies, the orcs are bad, evil, vile, and 100% won't make you feel bad to destroy. I like D&D lining up to those old tropes. Plus it's a game, and I don't want moral dilemmas of killing nice people... I want the enemies to be evil monsters. The DM Professor (Professor DM?) youtuber had a really neutral take on all of this, but I did very much agree with his "pig faced evil orcs in his homebrew world"... he mentioned orcs in the LotR books mentioned "scaled leg" when one of the hobbits stabbed it in the boot or shin, so they might have been reptilian. In the 1980s D&D cartoon with Venger and company, the orcs were sort of pig-faced and very green and looked reptilian to me.

Most have probably heard of Drizzt... some blame him for this whole situation, but really if you read the books 99.999% of Drow are just very very evil. Taking them, as a whole, out of that role just doesn't work for me. Having a random guy here or there that is good works fine... there are always exceptions to the rule.

With good reason, a lot of people reference World of Warcraft as being the beginning of Orcs becoming good guys. Blizzard was looking for a catchy story, they had surely read the Drizzt novels, and so why not make an Orc the good guy? While perhaps not as compelling or popular as Drizzt, it did lead them into a popular money making World of Warcraft game which a ton of people played (still play?). I mean, a played it a little bit when it first came out; I was on the Horde's side, but I picked an undead skeleton type guy, not a thick-wristed orc polygon guy. Do I want the undead to become suddenly good guys? No, leave them as the monsters... leave all the monsters alone, they are cooler that way.

 

[Mecheon]

My vote goes for... keep the traditionally evil monsters as evil monsters. It's a shame the corporate guys are trying to soften D&D to the extent of just selling more XYZ.

Well, too late because D&D orcs have never been interesting and people prefer orcs being more than just "The stock humanoid enemy". More interesting types of orcs from Warhammer and Warcraft absolutely crushed D&D orcs, so they're the pop culture standard nowerdays

I think the aim is to have more uniquely interesting stat blocks and, let's be honest? The orc stat blocks have rarely been interesting. Even the 1E one spends more time talking about what weapons they carry around than differentiating the stats from other things.

I was attracted to dungeons and dragons because I liked monsters as a kid. If you watch the Lord of the Rings movies, the orcs are bad, evil, vile, and 100% won't make you feel bad to destroy. I like D&D lining up to those old tropes. Plus it's a game, and I don't want moral dilemmas of killing nice people... I want the enemies to be evil monsters. The DM Professor (Professor DM?) youtuber had a really neutral take on all of this, but I did very much agree with his "pig faced evil orcs in his homebrew world"... he mentioned orcs in the LotR books mentioned "scaled leg" when one of the hobbits stabbed it in the boot or shin, so they might have been reptilian. In the 1980s D&D cartoon with Venger and company, the orcs were sort of pig-faced and very green and looked reptilian to me.

The question over orcs being evil or not has been a long-running one. If your take on them was that, then... Well, I disagree strongly and you clearly haven't read the novels, forgot the few humanising scenes orcs had, or haven't heard best part of those old LotR animated movies and absolute banger Where there's a Whip. They clearly have humanising elements to 'em, its just they're on opposite sides

I dunno who the DM Professor and have never heard of him outside of this thread, which says something about how much impact he has, is but if he's using pig orcs? He's not only using an outdated form of orc that hasn't been in western pop culture ever, but one from nearly 5 decades ago that D&D dropped instantly, and is ignoring D&D's very real strays into 'oops racism' that its done with orcs. Like, do I gotta bring up Orcs of Thar? We've gotten this far into the thread, do you really want me to bring up the "Woops TSR equated orcs with native Americans and Mongolians" the book?

Oh, and even Japan, the one bastion of pig orcs, doesn't treat them always as just evil. Some might, sure, but then you've also got stories where they're just a people trying to survive in a world that unjustly hates them

Most have probably heard of Drizzt... some blame him for this whole situation, but really if you read the books 99.999% of Drow are just very very evil. Taking them, as a whole, out of that role just doesn't work for me. Having a random guy here or there that is good works fine... there are always exceptions to the rule.

Drow in the books are unrealistic and stupid. Attempting to apply any nuace of "how the heck can this work in real life" falls apart pretty instantly. Regardless though, people are evil, not races, and of course there'd be other good drow. "This thing is always 100% evil and will always be Evil so you can kill them without thought" is childish writing with no realism

With good reason, a lot of people reference World of Warcraft as being the beginning of Orcs becoming good guys. Blizzard was looking for a catchy story, they had surely read the Drizzt novels, and so why not make an Orc the good guy? While perhaps not as compelling or popular as Drizzt, it did lead them into a popular money making World of Warcraft game which a ton of people played (still play?). I mean, a played it a little bit when it first came out; I was on the Horde's side, but I picked an undead skeleton type guy, not a thick-wristed orc polygon guy. Do I want the undead to become suddenly good guys? No, leave them as the monsters... leave all the monsters alone, they are cooler that way.

And orcs in Warcraft are a nuanced people with good and evil sorts. Thrall absolutely is as compelling and far more popular than Dritz, plus, frankly, Lord of the Clans is a lot more believable than Dritz's whole hot mess because the big enemy is just humans being humans. World of Warcraft was such a domininant force that it caused sales dips in at the time D&D products despite not being a TTRPG, and to this day still crushes the two D&D MMOs. Of course people still play WoW, its not as big as the Wrath days but still one of the leading MMOs, especially with its biggest competition in FFXIV falling to the wayside lately

The Forsaken weren't evil, just trying to survive in a world that hated them. Oh sure, occaisonal evil members who took 'world hates me' to mean 'time to burn it all', but by and large they're pretty good these days. Lilian Voss even helped defend the Emerald Dream last expansion. Heck, even back in Legion we had that buddy combo of a NElf demon hunter and an undead warlock running around beating up demons

 

[Micah Sweet]

Well, too late because D&D orcs have never been interesting and people prefer orcs being more than just "The stock humanoid enemy". More interesting types of orcs from Warhammer and Warcraft absolutely crushed D&D orcs, so they're the pop culture standard nowerdays

I think the aim is to have more uniquely interesting stat blocks and, let's be honest? The orc stat blocks have rarely been interesting. Even the 1E one spends more time talking about what weapons they carry around than differentiating the stats from other things.


The question over orcs being evil or not has been a long-running one. If your take on them was that, then... Well, I disagree strongly and you clearly haven't read the novels, forgot the few humanising scenes orcs had, or haven't heard best part of those old LotR animated movies and absolute banger Where there's a Whip. They clearly have humanising elements to 'em, its just they're on opposite sides

I dunno who the DM Professor and have never heard of him outside of this thread, which says something about how much impact he has, is but if he's using pig orcs? He's not only using an outdated form of orc that hasn't been in western pop culture ever, but one from nearly 5 decades ago that D&D dropped instantly, and is ignoring D&D's very real strays into 'oops racism' that its done with orcs. Like, do I gotta bring up Orcs of Thar? We've gotten this far into the thread, do you really want me to bring up the "Woops TSR equated orcs with native Americans and Mongolians" the book?

Oh, and even Japan, the one bastion of pig orcs, doesn't treat them always as just evil. Some might, sure, but then you've also got stories where they're just a people trying to survive in a world that unjustly hates them


Drow in the books are unrealistic and stupid. Attempting to apply any nuace of "how the heck can this work in real life" falls apart pretty instantly. Regardless though, people are evil, not races, and of course there'd be other good drow. "This thing is always 100% evil and will always be Evil so you can kill them without thought" is childish writing with no realism


And orcs in Warcraft are a nuanced people with good and evil sorts. Thrall absolutely is as compelling and far more popular than Dritz, plus, frankly, Lord of the Clans is a lot more believable than Dritz's whole hot mess because the big enemy is just humans being humans. World of Warcraft was such a domininant force that it caused sales dips in at the time D&D products despite not being a TTRPG, and to this day still crushes the two D&D MMOs. Of course people still play WoW, its not as big as the Wrath days but still one of the leading MMOs, especially with its biggest competition in FFXIV falling to the wayside lately

The Forsaken weren't evil, just trying to survive in a world that hated them. Oh sure, occaisonal evil members who took 'world hates me' to mean 'time to burn it all', but by and large they're pretty good these days. Lilian Voss even helped defend the Emerald Dream last expansion. Heck, even back in Legion we had that buddy combo of a NElf demon hunter and an undead warlock running around beating up demons

Tell us how you really feel. That all seems pretty disrespectful of anyone who holds a different view from yourself.

 

[Scribe]

Like, do I gotta bring up Orcs of Thar?

Depends, do you think the majority of people playing 5e were even ALIVE when this was printed?

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

I’m actually quite disturbed by the number of people have being playing D&D for so long with the deeply racist idea that “if it’s a different species to me it’s okay to kill it”. The world is full of monsters, and all of them are human.

Not to mention that there’s a huge difference in why Orcs and Storm Troopers are evil. The reason why it was okay for Luke Skywalker to blow up a moon-sized space station full of Storm Troopers wasn’t because they were born evil. It’s because they’re soldiers that serve a fascist empire. They’re called “Storm Troopers” for a reason.

I have “Storm Troopers” in my games. They’re just generally not born innately, genetically evil.

 

[jasper]

I'm talking about D&D players moaning about the changes to devils/demons/daemons. No-one was moaning about that in 1989. At most some people might have been "Where are they? Curious...".

oooh all moan moan moan. Why the fbeeep did they change the names? yes some of us were moaning, griping, and wondering why it was happening.