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​

 

[Emerikol]

Now that is all I'm thinking about- he he

I do miss the sexy demon marilith.

And that is probably why it is gone.

 

[dave2008]

And that is probably why it is gone.

except we still have sexy succubus, medusae, & vampires, so that doesn't seem to likely be the reason.

For some MM images you can go to my previous post in this thread here.

 

[Incenjucar]

It's a complex topic but, briefly, people cling to previous because they like a thing and want more of it. The more things that they like about a product that change into something they like less, the less likely they are to continue liking that product, and the less they can anticipate that product bringing them joy in the future. Sometimes that change is neccessary, like moving away from chainmail bikinis and topless monster ladies, and it's generally easier to swallow if the reason is clear, because then it has a clear stopping point. Uncertainty starts eating into anticipation.

 

[wizard71]

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.

If that is the case for Male Medusa, I have never heard of them. Was it a specific module? There has been nothing said of male hags. What would be the reason to save them for a future update when you can simply include a Gargamel looking dude I the current MM?

 

[wizard71]

No problem

Everything is new until it’s not. “We’ve never done it that way before” is never a good reason not to do something a new way.

WOTC is certainly very risk-averse, but that’s not keeping them from depicting women. There are tons of men, women, and people with androgynous features throughout the art in the books.

They have. Clearly you haven’t actually looked through the book yourself if you didn’t know that. I would suggest that whoever you’re getting your information from is not a very reliable source if they led you to believe otherwise.

And there are plenty of all of the above depicted throughout the books.

I don’t really have anything to say in response to this, but I left this part of your post in so as not to create any impression that I am misrepresenting you.

Please provide proof of male hag and banshee art. The current and prior monster manuals do not represent this art.

The why not approach to art is not really valid. You can make a death knight in robes and say it’s a death knight but that does not mean it is a necessary or desired change.

 

[Demetrios1453]

I didn't know that. I do have a D&D Beyond account, but I visit this website only when I need to use my Bugbear Ranger/Rogue on game night with my friends. When @dave2008 brought up the artist's name, I turned toward the 2024 Monster Manual I had recently bought for the name search and went straight to the Credits page.

It's also on the lower right margin of the marilith page in the printed version.

 

[Corinnguard]

It's also on the lower right margin of the marilith page in the printed version.

In tiny, easily overlooked print. There goes my initial Perception check.

 

[Parmandur]

I used Beyond like @Nadan suggested. I do wish they would credit artist in the physical book like they do on Beyond.

They are credited in the physical book, quite visible in the Inner margin of the page.

 

[Incenjucar]

If that is the case for Male Medusa, I have never heard of them. Was it a specific module? There has been nothing said of male hags. What would be the reason to save them for a future update when you can simply include a Gargamel looking dude I the current MM?

Maedar were in the 2E Monstrous Manual, and as I understand it have been around since 1E. They've always been fairly obscure. They actually have some rather interesting plot uses, including the ability to become glyptars - spirits trapped in gems who can turn statues into golems or weapons into magic weapons.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Maedar were in the 2E Monstrous Manual, and as I understand it have been around since 1E. They've always been fairly obscure. They actually have some rather interesting plot uses, including the ability to become glyptars - spirits trapped in gems who can turn statues into golems or weapons into magic weapons.

Oh, 2e Monstrous Manual. Is there anything you can't do?