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​

 

[Maxperson]

Those images are apples to apples. They are both the 5e24 core books (what you are calling 5.5e).

Now, I still think they are the same "design," just very different artistic takes on the same design.

Yep. I saw the two different years and my mind automatically went to the two editions. The new marilith is the default that replaces the old one in 5e. Those two wyverns are different takes on the same basic design.

 

[dave2008]

Yep. I saw the two different years and my mind automatically went to the two editions. The new marilith is the default that replaces the old one in 5e. Those two wyverns are different takes on the same basic design.

While I think your logic it fine, it is not relevant to the game. So it is unnecessary to think that way. The game doesn't care what representation of marilith you use, neither should we.

 

[Hussar]

Yep. I saw the two different years and my mind automatically went to the two editions. The new marilith is the default that replaces the old one in 5e. Those two wyverns are different takes on the same basic design.

So, now whatever is in the Monster Manual is the default? Funny how that argument seems to shift whenever it's convenient.

 

[Corinnguard]

So, now whatever is in the Monster Manual is the default? Funny how that argument seems to shift whenever it's convenient.

There should be something of a disclaimer under each picture then. "By looking at this pic, you acknowledge that this version of the monster is now the default monster for the new edition." Seriously, the default version should be whichever one becomes your favorite.

 

[Bae'zel]

Sorry folks, my tangent about the Wyvern was to show sympathy for people who dislike the new Marilith art's style and interpretation. To explain that I'm not debating personal taste.

Another example: in my campaign settings, elves do not have pastel green, blue or purple skin as shown in the PHB species chapter. That's probably the case for some D&D settings, but not mine. I respect the artist's decision, and the WotC's design guide to their staff, but I don't take it as gospel.*

To dislike artwork in a book for purely aesthetic reasons is fine (eg, I don't like Wayne Reynolds’ style, never have, never will, but kudos to his success), but to see the art as a symptom of some fundamental failing? To see it as a social, cultural or political stance from the publisher that you disagree with? I don't want to have that debate here; there are too many divisive political debates already in the world and the discourse is unpleasant at best.

EDIT: * To be clear I'm okay with elves being of different "Earthly" ethnicities though (eg, Asian, Black, Causcasian etc...).

 

[TiQuinn]

Sorry folks, my tangent about the Wyvern was to show sympathy for people who dislike the new Marilith art's style and interpretation. To explain that I'm not debating personal taste.

Another example: in my campaign settings, elves do not have pastel green, blue or purple skin as shown in the PHB species chapter. That's probably the case for some D&D settings, but not mine. I respect the artist's decision, and the WotC's design guide to their staff, but I don't take it as gospel.

To dislike artwork in a book for purely aesthetic reasons is fine (eg, I don't like Wayne Reynolds, never have, never will, but kudos to his success), but to see the art as a symptom of some fundamental failing? To see it as a social, cultural or political stance from the publisher that you disagree with? I don't want to have that debate here; there are too many divisive political debates already in the world and the discourse is unpleasant at best.

All this. All of it.

 

[Micah Sweet]

There should be something of a disclaimer under each picture then. "By looking at this pic, you acknowledge that this version of the monster is now the default monster for the new edition." Seriously, the default version should be whichever one becomes your favorite.

I don't think that's what default means. I agree you should use the one you like, but that doesn't make it the default option.

 

[TiQuinn]

I don’t think I’ve ever heard anyone connected with WotC (or TSR for that matter) say that a specific artistic representation of a D&D monster was the default representation of that monster. And no, I don’t think language to describe rules replacement from edition to edition carries over to the art.

 

[Voadam]

I find the argument that the presentation of monsters in the Monster Manual is not the baseline default presentation of monsters for D&D an odd argument. Individuals can of course reskin things or change lore for themselves and individual settings will often reinterpret and change things for that setting like Dark Sun and Eberron changing the lore on halflings, Dark Sun changing the physiology and look of dwarves to be hairless instead of bearded and elves to be taller than humans rather than shorter, etc. But the core monster books sets out a baseline from which variations differ.

 

[TiQuinn]

I find the argument that the presentation of monsters in the Monster Manual is not the baseline default presentation of monsters for D&D an odd argument. Individuals can of course reskin things or change lore for themselves and individual settings will often reinterpret and change things for that setting like Dark Sun and Eberron changing the lore on halflings, Dark Sun changing the physiology and look of dwarves to be hairless instead of bearded and elves to be taller than humans rather than shorter, etc. But the core monster books sets out a baseline from which variations differ.

I don’t equate artistic illustrations with written lore.