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​

 

[wizard71]

No

Presupposing that being feminine is a good thing for a multi-armed snake monster?

They come in male and female, and both are featured in the art.

We have male and female everything, because why not

Cause that

No

Presupposing that being feminine is a good thing for a multi-armed snake monster?

They come in male and female, and both are featured in the art.

We have male and female everything, because why not

Cause that would suck

Lmao now who's afraid of women?

Thank you for your response Charlaquin. While I appreciate the correspondence, I must confess I disagree with you here on several ponts. Please forgive my poor editing as that is not my strong suit but I will attempt to address my disagreements with your responses where applicable point by point.

1) The point of femineity being a positive or a negative for the marilith is not the point I was making. According to D&D previous lore they exclusively had a feminine upper appearance. No marilith I have seen portrayed in print or art for the Dungeons & Dragons universe has ever been presented as anything other than explicitly female from the top up persepective has ever been depicted and it seems silly to do so now, especially if the main point is simply why not? It is a creature that does not have a reproductive system so the abyss does not need to make logical sense in its monsters and the Abyss has no desire for symmetry. Therefore there is no reason for the Abyss to spawn male mariliths just because.

2) I think WOTC is afraid of drawing women because they take great pains to be risk adverse. Everyone is pretty bland.

3) Yes, the dryad and the medusa are both male and female which is silly. There was no reason for it. Why haven't other exclusively female antagonists like the banshee and the hags especially received this treatment?

4) I am glad you agree with me that simply drawing male or androgynes characters would suck. I feel female characters, npcs and monsters should be represented. I also feel they do not need to be patronizingly drawn as male characters to be acceptable. Male female, trans and non-binary characters all welcome in a fantasy setting.

5) I am not afraid of women at all. Any person should be an equal antagonist in a fantasy setting where magic levels the playing field with brute strength. I think women can be just as dangerous as men without having to fall back on the male reliance of physical strength.

 

[Sorinth]

3) Yes, the dryad and the medusa are both male and female which is silly. There was no reason for it. Why haven't other exclusively female antagonists like the banshee and the hags especially received this treatment?

Medusa have had male counterpart called a Maedar at least as far back as 2e, and I'm pretty sure it was announced that male Hags would be something we will see as well.

 

[dave2008]

Not @Charlaquin , but I will take a crack at responding (while noting you didn't respond to my comments - lucky Charlaquin and sad me )

1) The point of femineity being a positive or a negative for the marilith is not the point I was making. According to D&D previous lore they exclusively had a feminine upper appearance. No marilith I have seen portrayed in print or art for the Dungeons & Dragons universe has ever been presented as anything other than explicitly female from the top up persepective has ever been depicted and it seems silly to do so now, especially if the main point is simply why not? It is a creature that does not have a reproductive system so the abyss does not need to make logical sense in its monsters and the Abyss has no desire for symmetry. Therefore there is no reason for the Abyss to spawn male mariliths just because.

There is conversely no reason to spawn female only mariliths just because either. We also don't know this is a "male" marilith.

2) I think WOTC is afraid of drawing women because they take great pains to be risk adverse. Everyone is pretty bland.

Then why do they have so many women and female monsters in their art (including the MM). This argument holds no water against the clear evidence (again which I believe I posted in response to your post).

3) Yes, the dryad and the medusa are both male and female which is silly. There was no reason for it. Why haven't other exclusively female antagonists like the banshee and the hags especially received this treatment?

I don't know about the banshee (undead may be different), but both hags and harpies are shown with male and female versions in the 2024 MM. So you are just wrong on this one.

4) I am glad you agree with me that simply drawing male or androgynes characters would suck. I feel female characters, npcs and monsters should be represented. I also feel they do not need to be patronizingly drawn as male characters to be acceptable. Male female, trans and non-binary characters all welcome in a fantasy setting.

And WotC is clearly showing all in their art - so good?!

5) I am not afraid of women at all. Any person should be an equal antagonist in a fantasy setting where magic levels the playing field with brute strength. I think women can be just as dangerous as men without having to fall back on the male reliance of physical strength.

Males need not rely on physical strength either. Not sure what your point is here.

 

[dave2008]

Medusa have had male counterpart called a Maedar at least as far back as 2e, and I'm pretty sure it was announced that male Hags would be something we will see as well.

We have, they are in the 2024 MM, the poster clearly doesn't know what they are talking about:

 

[TiQuinn]

At the end of the day, it’s still just personal preference. The nice thing about that is you really don’t have to validate it or defend it. It simply stands on its own having no greater weight than anyone else’s personal preference.

 

[Scribe]

Is that fair?

No, I asked you to pick which one would be the exception, the one that doesnt belong, the answer is clear, but thats fine.

There is no need to continue this.

 

[dave2008]

No, I asked you to pick which one would be the exception, the one that doesnt belong, the answer is clear, but thats fine.

There is no need to continue this.

I did, or thought I did, I said it wasn't clear, but the most exceptional was the 2024 version (I then ranked them on a spectrum). Was it not clear when I said: "Naturally the 5e24 stands out because of no breasts." I guess you are done with this discussion which is fine.

I do feel that I have tried to explain my nuanced understanding and you seem to interrupt that as being evasive. I am not trying to be evasive, I am trying to explain my position which is not a simple black and white. Then you said I didn't answer. I will point out that you have not addressed my questions, you just ignore them.

 

[Chaltab]

Incidentally, the green hag art in the new MM is great. Gnarly looking creatures, throwing an eye in a bloody cauldron. Also she's holding a bag dripping blood.

 

[dave2008]

Incidentally, the green hag art in the new MM is great. Gnarly looking creatures, throwing an eye in a bloody cauldron. Also she's holding a bag dripping blood.

Also, the night hag appears to be using a human heart as a necklace

 

[Reynard]

Also, the night hag appears to be using a human heart as a necklace

Impossible. I have it on good authority that D&D 2024 is all cutsified and Rate G.