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.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Level Up is an example of a chosen "setting".

It has a setting available. In another book. The core materials support a wide variety of settings. I could remake a reasonable facsimile of the bulk of anything WotC put out with just the material available in the A5e core three (although there's a lot more to it than that).

 

[Yaarel]

Sure, you can provide the Setting information, in addition to the Rules, as a complete stand alone.

Level Up doesnt provide Setting Information. It provides Rules.
Setting Books, often provide supplemental (as they are Supplements) material, and some rules, while leaving the Core Rules as the well...core.

5.5 is attempting to be setting agnostic. That is why there is no culture. Its why the MM is providing minimal lore. Its why they didnt define various statblocks which may have more setting detail baked in.

5.5 has no Culture, as its PURPOSE is to be as open as can be, and Culture is often setting specific.

I check out Level Up SRD (= core) to see how it handles things like Nordic themes, Elves, whether religion is subjective or objective, and so on. All of this is setting.

What is there, is detailed descriptions of cultures that are specific to the Level Up setting.

For example, the Elf "cultures" are specific cultures that exist within the Level Up world setting.

For the sake of representing many diverse cultures, the Human "cultures" are generic, namely, Cosmopolitan, Imperial, Settler, and Villager.

Meanwhile, specific adventures can also fill in more details about any local culture.

This is what a "setting guide" looks like.

 

[Scribe]

I check out Level Up SRD (= core) to see how it handles things like Nordic themes, Elves, whether religion is subjective or objective, and so on. All of this is setting.

No, its examples of setting. Its examples of what the Culture rules object facilitates within a game running the LU rules.

This is what a "setting guide" looks like.

I have the rules. If this was a setting guide, I would have tried to get a refund.

The core LU rules are not a setting at all.

Heres a setting.

Eberron Rising From The Last War - Marketplace - D&D Beyond

<p style="margin-bottom:11px">Explore the lands of Eberron in this campaign sourcebook for the world’s greatest roleplaying game.</p> <p style="margin-bottom:11px"><strong>The Digital edition is only $10 when you choose Digital + Physical.</strong></p>

marketplace.dndbeyond.com

Chronicles of Eberron - Dungeon Masters Guild | Dungeon Masters Guild

Chronicles of Eberron - Join Eberron setting creator Keith Baker for another journey across the realms of Eberron, from the trackless void of t

www.dmsguild.com

Wayfinder's Guide to Eberron (5e) - Wizards of the Coast | Kindred of the East | Dungeon Masters Guild

Wayfinder's Guide to Eberron (5e) - Eberron was born in 2002 when Wizards of the Coast launched a worldwide search for a new campaign setting. Wayfinder's

www.dmsguild.com

 

[Yaarel]

No, its examples of setting. Its examples of what the Culture rules object facilitates within a game running the LU rules.

I will look more carefully at what you are linking, but my immediate response is as follows.

If it is good, for Level Up core rules to be "generic" about cultures (such as Human founded cultures that are Cosmopolitan, Imperial, Settler, and Villager) ...

Then it is equally good for D&D Players Handbook and Monster Manual core rules to be "generic" about cultures, such as player "backgrounds" and monster "professions".

The DETAILS and FLAVOR belong the CHOSEN setting.

 

[Scribe]

I will look more carefully at what you are linking, but my immediate response is as follows.

If it is good, for Level Up core rules to be "generic" about cultures (such as Human founded cultures that are Cosmopolitan, Imperial, Settler, and Villager) ...

Then it is equally good for D&D Players Handbook and Monster Manual to be "generic" about cultures, such as player "backgrounds" and monster "professions".

The DETAILS and FLAVOR belong the CHOSEN setting.

I'm not making a Good/Bad determination here.

LU core rules are generic, the Culture examples demonstrate, just as the 5.5 core rules are generic and the Backgrounds demonstrate, the potential for what those rules containers (Culture in LU, Background in 5.5) facilitate.

Good, or Bad, is not the point. LU is not a Setting Book. It is a Rules Book. 5.5 is the same. Its the core baseline rules, which will be leveraged to provide supplemental works a framework to build upon.

 

[Yaarel]

I'm not making a Good/Bad determination here.

LU core rules are generic, the Culture examples demonstrate, just as the 5.5 core rules are generic and the Backgrounds demonstrate, the potential for what those rules containers (Culture in LU, Background in 5.5) facilitate.

Good, or Bad, is not the point. LU is not a Setting Book. It is a Rules Book. 5.5 is the same. Its the core baseline rules, which will be leveraged to provide supplemental works a framework to build upon.

I view Level Up as having a pronounced default setting with default assumptions. I agree it is easy to modify.

I view 5.5 in the same way.

With regard to Level Up player options. When I look at the many options that "culture" grants and the many options that "background" grants, they are often redundant (thematically but distinct mechanically).

It is possible, and for me preferable, to use the background mechanic to represent both the culture and ones own circumstance within it.

For example, I use D&D 5e (5.0 and 5.5) for very different kinds of settings. It is an amazing toolbox to handle anything from virtual reality mindscapes (Astral), wizard worlds (Feywild), near future (namely normal reallife with certain cities around the world accelerating high tech) (spellcasting). I am able to tweak the mechanics of 5e to make it do almost anything for any setting, but normally use 5e as-is, with only occasional reflavoring or bannings. For example, the near future lacks teleportation spells, but nanobots allowing remote presence (and Project Image) does happen at higher levels. Telepathy (brain implants) are routine.

I almost never need to modify the 5e rules, no matter how wild the setting is.

The only thing I do do, is create new backgrounds that players can choose from. For example, I like Elves. I have mythologically accurate Norse "Alvr" Elves and Scottish "Sith" Elves. But otherwise I enjoy the diversity of elven-majority cultures, an lean into Greyhawk and Forgotten Realms, for various local cultures.

For examples. Greyhawk High Elf, includes High Mithral Armorer (for Elven Chainmail, actually this is and grants a special version of the Mage Armor spell), and High Griffon Rider (raising and riding Griffons and Hippogriffins). For the Norsesque region, there is a background for a Songster (Ljóði), that grants certain spell knowledge.

And so on.

Backgrounds are a powerful mechanic to represent and build detailed cultures.

Nevertheless, these kinds of options within specific cultures belong in a chosen setting. The core rules need to be as flexible as possible to handle many different kinds of settings.

 

[Scribe]

I view Level Up as having a pronounced default setting with default assumptions. I agree it is easy to modify.

I view 5.5 in the same way.

I see both as so generic as to have no meaningful setting at all.

5.5 especially is just empty terms and phrases of the 'multiverse' and turning the various previously distinct player options into increasingly easy to swap options with no depth, culture, or meaning.

 

[Yaarel]

I see both as so generic as to have no meaningful setting at all.

This is a feature, not a bug.

The purpose of D&D (including Level Up) is worldbuilding, "whose only limitation is your imagination".

The core rules that make this possible must be easy to repurpose for any setting.

A setting is where to deep dives into lore. Not the core rules.

For example, the 5.5 Forgotten Realms books coming-soon, have player options like "Purple Dragon Knight" and "Scion of the Three" for subclasses. These are extremely culturally specific options. A setting handbook is where to put them.

The "Purple" Dragon Knight is so specific, there are calls to make to make this important archetype of a dragon rider more generic to adapt to more settings (and more dragon species). If in a core rulebook, absolutely. But in a setting book this kind of baking ultra specific cultural lore into the mechanics is legitimate "flavor".

5.5 especially is just empty terms and phrases of the 'multiverse' and turning the various previously distinct player options into increasingly easy to swap options with no depth, culture, or meaning.

For me, the "multiverse" is a meaningful reference. I use the Astral Plane, Feywild, Border Ethereal, and Material Plane for distinct settings. I dont deal much with the Shadowfell but it is there when relevant. Elementals are important, but the ones that are native to the Material Plane. Recently, I have come to understand the Elemental Planes as existing within matter, rather than "somewhere else", and this new view will probably translate into more usage of the Elemental Planes at my tables. For Feywild, I lean into 4e Eladrin as a magi-tech wizard culture.

Each of these planes in the "multiverse" is amazingly useful.


Also there is profitability when D&D and Level Up sell different settings. Changing the rules too often is disruptive. But selling settings can meet the needs of many niche players. A popular setting is lucrative.

 

[Scribe]

This is a feature, not a bug.

Sure, but then don't claim LU or 5.5 have a default setting.

 

[Yaarel]

Sure, but then don't claim LU or 5.5 have a default setting.

5.0 definitely has a default setting. That was a pet peeve of mine (especially its take on polytheism, or that "all" Elves = dexterity, or the "weave").

But 5.5 really doesnt. All the same information is in both Players Handbooks. One can still have an Elf cultural background with high Dex or an Orc with high Con. In 5.5 the information is organized in a way that is easy to modify or replace. Fantastic for worldbuilding.