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​

 

[dave2008]

They aren't really criteria, so much as things I would like to receive that I am not getting from the 2024 artwork. I would be happy if it made me feel any one of those things.

I feel like these mariliths better achieve the effect I would like to see (all taken from here)View attachment 398188View attachment 398187View attachment 398186

FYI, I posted some more mariliths here and each editions mariliths here

 

[npick03]

FYI, I posted some more mariliths here and each editions mariliths here

I confess, I get a bit lost in the sauce when it comes to these bigger threads

 

[Corinnguard]

I confess, I get a bit lost in the sauce when it comes to these bigger threads

How did this topic thread become so big anyway? For that matter, how does any thread become so big?

 

[Voadam]

That is generally my thought as well. Though I do think that art, in general, has more impact than text.

I thought for a long time that 3e orcs were green based on the exemplar art in the MM even though the MM text says gray skin. The art stood out much more.

 

[Jensaarai]

Honestly pretty cool that mariliths can have a sort of 'war-form', and adds some more variety to their appearance.

It also doesn't suddenly 'make them not mariliths' or whatever; still six arms, still a serpentine lower-half, still a demonic weapons master of countless battlefields.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Honestly pretty cool that mariliths can have a sort of 'war-form', and adds some more variety to their appearance.

It also doesn't suddenly 'make them not mariliths' or whatever; still six arms, still a serpentine lower-half, still a demonic weapons master of countless battlefields.

If they were capable of changing to a separate "war-form" as you say, wouldn't it make sense to mention that in the text somewhere? As it stands, this is the only form marilith appear to have if you're a new player for whom this your first MM. Which may very well be the intent.

 

[Jensaarai]

If they were capable of changing to a separate "war-form" as you say, wouldn't it make sense to mention that in the text somewhere? As it stands, this is the only form marilith appear to have if you're a new player for whom this your first MM. Which may very well be the intent.

The lore text in 24!e is fairly sparse, so things can be inferred or just simply expanded upon. Demons and devils are often described as being malleable in their shape and form, so why wouldn't some of them have a war-form or whatever when they want to menace?

And like I said, I prefer the idea of fiends having varying looks and appearances, while still generally hewing to similar "types" as a way people have organized them, over just being copy-pasted endlessly.

 

[dave2008]

If they were capable of changing to a separate "war-form" as you say, wouldn't it make sense to mention that in the text somewhere? As it stands, this is the only form marilith appear to have if you're a new player for whom this your first MM. Which may very well be the intent.

I you suggesting we can't be free to use our imaginations, that we have to be beholden to everything a WotC writes? I don't think so, but why then are you taking this stance. You constantly mention that we need to loosen the grip that WotC has on D&D, then you say everything must be spelled out for us by WotC? So which is it? Is not better for them to write less and us imagine more!

PS - I actual do understand what your are saying. My comment above is just to point out how odd your statement sounds in the context of many of your other statements. But that is the push and pull of the game we love I guess!

 

[Micah Sweet]

I you suggesting we can't be free to use our imaginations, that we have to be beholden to everything a WotC writes? I don't think so, but why then are you taking this stance. You constantly mention that we need to loosen the grip that WotC has on D&D, then you say everything must be spelled out for us by WotC? So which is it? Is not better for them to write less and us imagine more!

PS - I actual do understand what your are saying. My comment above is just to point out how odd your statement sounds in the context of many of your other statements. But that is the push and pull of the game we love I guess!

If you take the poster's idea of a war-form as personal speculation/lore they are making up themselves, then of course that's perfectly fine (although personally I would want mechanical back-up to model that concept in play). My issue is that it seems clear to me that WotC is not using this new art as an alternative, but instead as a replacement, which is supported by the lack of any other form for the marilith in 5.5 in the art or text. I am long on record for really disliking official lore being replaced in any franchise, only added to, and an art change this drastic qualifies as a lore change IMO. Certainly I don't like lore replacement within the supposedly same edition of the game. That D&D is a less passive form of media than film, TV, or literature is irrelevant to this issue for me. This is clearly (to me) not designed to be additive. From my perspective it is functionally the same as changing what a Star Wars rancor looks like from Return of the Jedi and not making any mention of the change, like it has always been that way.

Anyway, that's where I'm coming from. I actually like the idea of a war-form for the marilith, as personal lore for your own table, or as additive official lore that doesn't change the past. And of course none of this affects me or my game. I just find it interesting to discuss.

 

[Jensaarai]

IIRC WotC has said several times that previous depictions of some of the monsters, like dragons, are still perfectly valid.