2025 Monster Manual to Introduce Male Versions of Hags, Medusas, and Dryads

The upcoming Monster Manual will feature artwork depicting some creatures like hags and medusas in both genders, a first for Dungeons & Dragons. In the "Everything You Need to Know" video for the upcoming Monster Manual, designers Jeremy Crawford and Wesley Schneider revealed that the new book would feature artwork portraying both male and female versions of creatures like hags, dryads, satyrs, and medusas. While there was a male medusa named Marlos Urnrayle in Princes of the Apocalypse (who had a portrait in the book) and players could make satyr PCs of either gender, this marks the first time that D&D has explicitly shown off several of these creatures as being of both male and female within a rulebook. There is no mechanical difference between male creatures and female creatures, so this is solely a change in how some monsters are presented.

In other news that actually does impact D&D mechanics, goblins are now classified as fey creatures (similar to how hobgoblins were portrayed as fey creatures in Monsters of the Multiverse) and gnolls are now classified as fiends.

Additionally, monster statblocks include potential treasure and gear options, so that DMs can reward loot when a player character inevitably searches the dead body of a creature.

The new Monster Manual will be released on February 18th, 2025.

 

[Charlaquin]

Everyone knows vampires are dessicated corpses and werewolves derived their power from deals with Satan. All these aristocratic vampires and infected werewolves are corruptions of the folklore.

I’ve actually observed a bit of an uptick in vampire-related content depicting vampires as horrific monsters again lately. Last Voyage of the Demeter was excellent, and so was the Nosferatu remake. I especially liked how the latter kept the overt sexual allegory of the vampire, but with the vampire being a gross monster instead of a sexy young man. Highly recommend it, instant classic material.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I know you are all about additive lore - so that shouldn't be stumbling block

It isn't...for me. Clearly some people have a problem with it though.

 

[Micah Sweet]

But at the same time D&D has seen a huge increase in ugly evil hags. In the beginning there was only Baba Yaga, now there are hag covens in nearly every adventure.

WotC loves the fey, and hags are a fey staple.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I’ve actually observed a bit of an uptick in vampire-related content depicting vampires as horrific monsters again lately. Last Voyage of the Demeter was excellent, and so was the Nosferatu remake. I especially liked how the latter kept the overt sexual allegory of the vampire, but with the vampire being a gross monster instead of a sexy young man. Highly recommend it, instant classic material.

First time I saw a movie like that was 30 Days of Night. Not a fan, but probably not because of the monstrous vampires.

 

[abirdcall]

You can't just "make" folklore. It has to develop organically from the folk. When you "make" folklore you just end up with "intellectual property."

How long does it take for something to become folklore?

This is developing organically from folks. We want male hags so we are creating stories with them.

Observing traditions and retelling tales is important but so it building on those tales and incorporating our current understanding and lessons we have learned.

Storytelling is a sacred tradition that continues to this day. Part of venerating that tradition is telling our own stories which become part of it.

 

[Charlaquin]

I just don't think that hags should be the vehicle for inclusion. They're villains. They're evil. If inclusion is good and exclusion is bad, shouldn't we have the monsters be exclusive?

Hags aren’t the vehicle for inclusion, D&D is. Moreover, if you’re going the angle of monsters as moral lessons, then having “old ugly woman” as a type of monster is not the lesson we want to be teaching. If we want villains who are exclusive as a negative example, men is not really the group we want them to be excluding.

 

[Charlaquin]

Well, bad news unless Anne Rice is also now a vampire...

I almost want to give this a “laugh” reaction, but it feels insensitive

 

[Micah Sweet]

Hags aren’t the vehicle for inclusion, D&D is. Moreover, if you’re going the angle of monsters as moral lessons, then having “old ugly woman” as a type of monster is not the lesson we want to be teaching. If we want villains who are exclusive as a negative example, men is not really the group we want them to be excluding.

I just prefer the older folklore personally. Good fiction, like a lot of mythology. Not really looking for hags to represent anything in particular.

 

[abirdcall]

But they're not doing anything unique with male hags other than... having male hags. They're not engaging with the inherent gender transgression of such an identity. They're not making male hags into statements on patriarchy.

No one complained that George Romero's zombies had little to nothing to do with the folkloric zombies of voodoo... because Night of the Living Dead was a well made, artful, innovative film with plenty to say. From everything we know about the upcoming monster manual, that is not the case with male hags, nor is it with other traditionally feminine monsters like medusae or dryads.

Speaking as a woman who has expertise in gender transgression I can verify that their existence is a statement on patriarchy and engaging in the inherent gender transgression.

 

[Charlaquin]

First time I saw a movie like that was 30 Days of Night. Not a fan, but probably not because of the monstrous vampires.

Yeah, I like the premise of vampires in the arctic circle having a month-long feeding frenzy during polar winter. But the movie itself was… just ok.