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]

Toward the beginning of this thread, I received two sad emojis just for saying:

Since 5.5e now has Male Dryads and Male Hags, perhaps this Marilith is a male of its' kind?

There was no follow-up quote from either poster as to why they were saddened at the possibility of the Marilith being a male of its kind. So, I am equally bemused as you are.


There have been a number of posts that mentioned other female-gendered monsters in the new Monster Manual. And none of them have received as much attention as the Marilith. So, that leaves the question of why the Marilith is being singled out

I wasn't one of the two, but I can guess that it's because there aren't any male dryads(being mythological wood nymphs) or male hags(hags being female). The changes are indicative of a direction WotC is going that is disappointing to those of us who view the changes as an overreaction.

As I said earlier in the thread, there's zero wrong with having monsters that are all male or all female. There are wrong ways to depict all male or all female monsters, but if you don't engage in those ways, it's perfectly fine.

 

[DinoInDisguise]

Because I haven’t seen anyone complain that WotC hasn’t been consistent and showed a male Marilith too, in fact, I’ve seen a general objection to the inclusion of male monsters in traditionally female-only ones, making me wonder if it really is about: “I want pretty female only monsters” and/or “it’s tradition”, neither of which wins me over.

Without commenting on the politics of the day, or the political aspect to this topic. And without getting into my personal opinion, which is full on apathy on these topics.

Many of the monsters are based in hundreds or thousands of years of mythology. Simply throwing that out due to a subjective modern sensibility was always going to spark some amount of distaste.

Medusa is a good example. Male Medusas are simply a modern creation in pursuit of fixing a perceived injustice. If you do not perceive that injustice from the source material, you may find the deviation from that source material to be undesirable. Or worse, disrespectful.

Mariliths are a D&D creation based on Hindu mythology. One where gods and demons often have six arms. You will see in a quick google search of the word that it is universally depicted as a female upper body. Even with this more modern monster, there is a momentum to the established "lore."

Anytime WotC changes a long standing monster, no matter the reason, there will be push back against it. That push back is simply a rejection of changing of the monster. This is because the perceived issues being fixed are not universally perceived. A reasonable person could read Marilith's origin and lore and not percieve sexism, as an example.

That all said, it's WotC's game but you can depict monsters however you wish. One of the great strengths of this hobby is it's ability to be personalized to fit one's own needs and desires.

 

[Corinnguard]

I wasn't one of the two, but I can guess that it's because there aren't any male dryads(being mythological wood nymphs) or male hags(hags being female). The changes are indicative of a direction WotC is going that is disappointing to those of us who view the changes as an overreaction.

As I said earlier in the thread, there's zero wrong with having monsters that are all male or all female. There are wrong ways to depict all male or all female monsters, but if you don't engage in those ways, it's perfectly fine.

True. In Greek mythology, the male counterpart of the nymphs were the Satyrs. The new Monster Manual now has female Satyrs.

 

[Maxperson]

And without getting into my personal opinion, which is full on apathy on these topics.

I mean, by definition it's hard to get into apathy.

Many of the monsters are based in hundreds or thousands of years of mythology. Simply throwing that out due to a subjective modern sensibility was always going to spark some amount of distaste.

Medusa is a good example. Male Medusas are simply a modern creation in pursuit of fixing a perceived injustice. If you do not perceive that injustice from the source material, you may find the deviation from that source material to be undesirable. Or worse, disrespectful.

Mariliths are a D&D creation based on Hindu mythology. One where gods and demons often have six arms. You will see in a quick google search of the word that it is universally depicted as a female upper body. Even with this more modern monster, there is a momentum to the established "lore."

Anytime WotC changes a long standing monster, no matter the reason, there will be push back against it. That push back is simply a rejection of changing of the monster. This is because the perceived issues being fixed are not universally perceived. A reasonable person could read Marilith's origin and lore and not percieve sexism, as an example.

That all said, it's WotC's game but you can depict monsters however you wish. One of the great strengths of this hobby is it's ability to be personalized to fit one's own needs and desires.

The rest I agree with.

 

[Maxperson]

True. In Greek mythology, the male counterpart of the nymphs were the Satyrs. The new Monster Manual now has female Satyrs.

Does it really? Why not just put the two together as a group in the 5.5e MM and reference them as being counterparts in the lore?

 

[Incenjucar]

I'm all for female satyrs and male nymphs. They are not equivalent in lore or abilities. Just don't make the default satyr image based on a lion or something.

 

[Alzrius]

At worst, print out the entry for Marilith in the Monster Girl Encyclopedia and tape it over the 2024 MM art.

The joke's on you, pal: the marilith isn't in the Monster Girl Encyclopedia.

And believe me, I checked quite thoroughly.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Yeah....no.

This is a Marilith.

Why do snake demons need breasts?
Just asking?

 

[Incenjucar]

Since when is a marilith a "snake demon"?

 

[Alzrius]

Why do snake demons need breasts?
Just asking?

To shamelessly steal a joke that was made earlier in this thread: because that's where their snilk comes from.