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​

 

[Parmandur]

Someone upthread a bit facetiously referred to male hags basically being Gargamel, which, on further reflection, is actually a pretty reasonable proto-example. I mean, he lives in his semi-ruined castle in the forest with his cat familiar and terrorizes the local fey, right? It's not a far leap to make him a bit less human, and he basically becomes a male hag. Granted, his rival Hogatha is definitely a more classic portrayal of a hag...

 

[Distracted DM]

I don't really remember any fiends in Birthright.

In 1e Maralith was the name of a single Type V demon, the way Balor was the name of an individual Type VI, etc. others had different personal names.

The 1e DMG monster appendix has more.

View attachment 397976

Birthright, with some exceptions, didn't have a lot of demons/devils/outsiders like the other settings.

 

[Bae'zel]

One of the best decisions I made was to never name a creature to the players when I describe them. They can make educated guesses, sure, but it's fun when they're wrong.

Especially when I'm running my own settings. If I describe a "woman with many arms, her lower body that of a giant snake" some players may know what it is, but I doubt that anyone would interrupt me with a "well AKSHUALLY, in the 2024 MM the Marilith looks like X".

And if they did, the monster attacks them first.

 

[dave2008]

Actually, even if they made the game more to my taste (far too late on both sides now), I'd prefer them to be less dominant. I really think too much centralization is bad for the hobby.

I know, I was being cheeky. Though it is never to late for them to pivot back to something you like more.

 

[dave2008]

3e: "This large, otherworldly entity appears to be an attractive female human with six arms—at least from her head to her waist."

I find this description interesting given the picture that goes with it - I wouldn't call it attractive (subjective) or human (objectively not human). So in these cases, what is the primary source, the written or the art?

 

[Corinnguard]

I find this description interesting given the picture that goes with it - I wouldn't call it attractive (subjective) or human (objectively not human). So in these cases, what is the primary source, the written or the art?

View attachment 398146

It could be both the written and the art. Someone writes up their concept of what the Marilith ought to look like for a particular edition of an RPG, and then some artist takes that writing and tries to create artwork from it.

 

[dave2008]

It could be both the written and the art. Someone writes up their concept of what the Marilith ought to look like for a particular edition of an RPG, and then some artist takes that writing and tries to create artwork from it.

Of course, I am not sure what your point is?

What I was asking is what is more "canonical." Personally, in discussion of fictional accuracy I lean toward text descriptions as an indication of the author's intent. However, this is not a novel and the "author" is a corporation / team of people. So I feel it is less clear. I would still lean to the text description, but I imagine for a lot of people the image has a stronger impression and becomes the "canonical" description in their minds.

 

[Voadam]

It could be both the written and the art. Someone writes up their concept of what the Marilith ought to look like for a particular edition of an RPG, and then some artist takes that writing and tries to create artwork from it.

I think normally that is the procedure, giving artists instructions and the artists work from those instructions but in 3e I remember reading that it was the other way around. They had concept artists work first on concepts for the monsters' appearance in 3e with just lists and having prior edition descriptions and then worked on iterations from what the artists came up with and the editors liked. So we got the skinny displacer beasts and redone dragon designs from the artist decisions not from writers first.

 

[Corinnguard]

Of course, I am not sure what your point is?

I was thinking the written and the art could both be the primary source instead of it being one or the other.

 

[dave2008]

I was thinking the written and the art could both be the primary source instead of it being one or the other.

What do you do about conflicts like this then?