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]

Ok, so this Marilith could be a tactical genius, right?

No. Tactical genius = lawful. Mariliths being demons aren't lawful. The one there could be an intuitive genius on the battlefield, though.

So what’s the problem with its design again?

It's no longer what the marilith has been for 50 years, which is female.

It’s not the lack of boobs and it’s not the lack of grace or dignity. Is it just that it’s scaly instead of fleshy?

There aren't many ways to draw female, and they didn't do any of it with this one in 5.5e. They also removed female from the marilith lore. The problem is the lore change, which is backed up by the artwork.

 

[Maxperson]

Do you see male in it?

Yes. It looks male to me. It's very hard to draw something that looks neither male, nor female.

 

[Incenjucar]

Again, specifics, please. You don’t like that the design changed, I got that part. What exactly changed that you dislike? You say it’s not the breasts, I’ll take your word for that. So what is it? The color and number of arms haven’t changed. So, what are we left with? That she’s muscular? That the torso is scaly instead of fleshy? What?

• Pudgy stumpy caterpillar arms
• Chest looks like it has fat rolls due to lack of definition and the way that muscle overlaps the shoulders
• Scales look like like they're from a rattle snake who was stroked the wrong direction, hard
• Purple/blue, spiky, scaly, and glowy, with slung-under arms makes it look like an upraised behir
• It's basically the same colors from top to bottom, all the way around. I think the lower half has some green but it's barely visible and blends in with the weird chonky Dark Sun weapons
• The face and head are demonic/diabolic in the most generic way; the most interesting thing is the weird gross pink cat ears
• The only gear is the weapons. I have no visual indication of any personality traits beyond Generic Humanoid Monster.
• The weapons themselves are so glowy and chonky and single-material that they lack any interesting visible detail. They're not even detailed enough to be notably fiendish.

 

[Charlaquin]

No. Tactical genius = lawful. Mariliths being demons aren't lawful. The one there could be an intuitive genius on the battlefield, though.

But from this art, could you tell the creature’s level of genius - tactical, intuitive, or otherwise? I could not.

It's no longer what the marilith has been for 50 years, which is female.

How do you know?

There aren't many ways to draw female, and they didn't do any of it with this one in 5.5e. They also removed female from the marilith lore. The problem is the lore change, which is backed up by the artwork.

I mean, lots of creatures have very minimal sexual dimorphism, if any. Even if this design was completely lacking in traditional gender signifiers, we would not be able to determine its sex. It also is not completely lacking in traditional gender signifiers. It has full lips, of a richer color and glossier sheen than the rest of its face. It has upturned teardrop shaped eyelids, also of a different color than the rest of its face. These things are suggestive of makeup, one of the most common gender signifiers in visual art. Furthermore, it has high cheek bones and a very shallow brow, which in humans are more typical of feminine faces. It’s subtle, but it’s definitely feminine coded.

 

[Charlaquin]

Yes. It looks male to me. It's very hard to draw something that looks neither male, nor female.

What about it looks male?

 

[Incenjucar]

So, this is not a dig on the artist's skill, I have no idea what direction they were working with, but strong art design generally actively communicates something about what is depicted. The art should generally be giving you strong clues, not just leaving you with a blank slate.

We have no proof that a random frog isn't a tactical genius.

 

[Charlaquin]

• Pudgy stumpy caterpillar arms
• Chest looks like it has fat rolls due to lack of definition and the way that muscle overlaps the shoulders
• Scales look like like they're from a rattle snake who was stroked the wrong direction, hard
• Purple/blue, spiky, scaly, and glowy, with slung-under arms makes it look like an upraised behir
• It's basically the same colors from top to bottom, all the way around. I think the lower half has some green but it's barely visible and blends in with the weird chonky Dark Sun weapons
• The face and head are demonic/diabolic in the most generic way; the most interesting thing is the weird gross pink cat ears

Ah, ok, now we’re getting somewhere! Thank you for the specific answer, I appreciate it. So, acknowledging that this will ultimately come down to subjective preferences, why do you feel that these design choices are worse than the more sleek, human-like (at least in the torso) design they’re replacing? And can you offer any additional insight by comparing and contrasting with the 3e design? Were you equally displeased with that design? Why or why not?

• The only gear is the weapons. I have no visual indication of any personality traits beyond Generic Humanoid Monster.
• The weapons themselves are so glowy and chonky and single-material that they lack any interesting visible detail. They're not even detailed enough to be notably fiendish.

Yeah, I don’t like the weapons either.I think we can safely agree that something that looked more blade-like would have been preferable to these weird crystal things, and also that the bloodless wounds on the humans this marilith is fighting are dumb. I’m more interested in discussing the design of the creature itself.

 

[Maxperson]

But from this art, could you tell the creature’s level of genius - tactical, intuitive, or otherwise? I could not.

No. Not a clue based on the picture.

How do you know?

Both the picture and the lore have been deliberately changed to remove female. Therefore it isn't what it has been for the last 50 years, which shows and says female. It's super easy to see the change.

I mean, lots of creatures have very minimal sexual dimorphism, if any. Even if this design was completely lacking in traditional gender signifiers, we would not be able to determine its sex. It also is not completely lacking in traditional gender signifiers. It has full lips, of a richer color and glossier sheen than the rest of its face. It has upturned teardrop shaped eyelids, also of a different color than the rest of its face. These things are suggestive of makeup, one of the most common gender signifiers in visual art. Furthermore, it has high cheek bones and a very shallow brow, which in humans are more typical of feminine faces. It’s subtle, but it’s definitely feminine coded.

Were it still female, the lore wouldn't have been changed to remove female.

 

[Hussar]

I would say it looks much more brutish ( no autocorrect I do not mean British) than before. Big fangs, claws, coarse scales. Yes it looks a lot more brutish now.

 

[Charlaquin]

I would say it looks much more brutish ( no autocorrect I do not mean British) than before. Big fangs, claws, coarse scales. Yes it looks a lot more brutish now.

I’d say it looks more monstrous. But I don’t think brutishness is something that can be discerned from its body shape. Sleekly-shaped bodies can be very brutish, and large, muscular, and corpulent bodies can be very graceful. Fangs, claws, and scales likewise communicate nothing about degree of brutishness, though they may suggest danger.