D&D (2024) D&D Marilith Is Far More Bestial In 2025

The new 2025 Monster Manual has all-new art, and one major change is the depiction of the marilith. Up until now, the marilith has been depicted as a six-armed humanish female from the waist up; while in the 2025 book, the picture is far more bestial in nature.

Not only is the imagery more demonic, it also features the creature in action, simultaneously beheading, stabbing, and entwining its foes with its six arms and snake-like tail.

Left 2025 Marilith / Right 2014 Marilith​

 

[Weiley31]

How many hawt fiends do you need?

The answer is, and always will be, YES.

 

[TheSword]

If this happens to be the case, then which Demon Lord is this Marilith associated with?

Yeenoghu? Kostiche?

 

[Weiley31]

Well, here's another good Marilith.

 

[Weiley31]

Yeenoghu? Kostiche?

Yeenoguh would be more Gnoll/hyenaish looking so it has to be Kostiche.

 

[Dire Bare]

I'm not a fan of the new art, the specific new art piece . . . but I'm totally alright with a more monstrous take on the marilith. I love the classic marilith look, I'm cool with the new marilith look.

I find it amusing how upset some folks get about changes in art direction like this. I mean, it's okay if you don't care for a specific change, but some of y'all are acting like WotC rolled up and shot your childhood dead.

For long time fans . . . sheesh, use what you want in your own games and relax.

When 4E introduced a more monstrous dryad, I LOVED the new look and concept, but also missed the classic sexy tree lady nymph too . . . so in my campaign, the more scary tree monster was the dryad's true form, but they often took on the sexy nymph form to lure travelers to their doom . . .

 

[Distracted DM]

Of all fiends, demons should have the most diversity in appearance, given that they’re the embodiment of chaos.

Also, I had no idea people cared about Mariliths. I don’t think I’ve ever used them.

1. Agreed; ofc one could say "demons, should they even have types if they're the embodiment of chaos?" I don't think they are, though. They're CE, not just C. There's obviously some element of organization with their manifestations.

2. I've used them a bunch. They're pretty nasty. They also feature in a number of adventures, new and old.

 

[Scribe]

1. Agreed; ofc one could say "demons, should they even have types if they're the embodiment of chaos?" I don't think they are, though. They're CE, not just C. There's obviously some element of organization with their manifestations.

2. I've used them a bunch. They're pretty nasty. They also feature in a number of adventures, new and old.

I also vehemently disagree with the concept that Chaos = Random = Disordered = Whatever.

The Law and Chaos breakdown is more along the lines of structure vs personal freedom and desire.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

2. I've used them a bunch. They're pretty nasty. They also feature in a number of adventures, new and old.

Same. They have (had) a great look and are terrifying in combat.

 

[Rhineglade]

Hate this to be frank. Some traditions are hard to drop.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Nah. D&D is what it is, because it has history. To ignore or overwrite that, damages the brand more than anything.

Without the tradition, the inertia, the weight of decades? Well, best to not open up what happens when they diverge from those things too much.

Agreed. You want monsters to look that different? Make different monsters.