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​

 

[Hussar]

Just on the point about "monstrous" vs "brutish". I would point out that title of this thread is that the marilith looks more "bestial".

AFAIC, these are all pretty much synonymous. There really isn't a whole lot of difference between them.

Now, me? I like the more bestial look. I think demons SHOULD look bestial. Save the other stuff for devils. There's already so much overlap between the two, anything that helps distinguish them from each other is a good thing IMO.

 

[Maxperson]

Not really. Draw an iguana, or an alligator, or wolverine, or a snake, or a turtle or a squirrel, etc. Then tell me if is male or female.

Draw a humanoid version of those and it will almost always look male or female.

 

[Hussar]

So why is every other creature that I've seen that has been changed like that showing both male and female, but not marilith?

Oh FFS.

Orcs in every single Monster Manual from 1e to now have shown male orcs. I don't recall a single female orc (and I'm struggling to think of a single female humanoid) in any Monster Manual ever. Does that mean that humanoids are all male?

NOTE, for the ultra pedantic because I know that this will come up - I SPECIFICALLY SAID HUMANOID. Not Demi-human and not human. Orc, kobold, hobgoblin, goblin, bugbear. Had there been a single image of a female of any of those four in any Monster Manual?

 

[dave2008]

So why is every other creature that I've seen that has been changed like that showing both male and female, but not marilith?

I provided a rather detailed explanation to why I believe the changes were made in a much earlier post that I don't feel like digging up at the moment. However, I don't really see how that answer is relevant.

Nonetheless, to be a bit reductive, I would say the other creatures are much more human like than a literal demon that has 6-arms and serpent body.

Will you answer my question: why do seem to insist female = human/elf/humanoid female?

 

[Charlaquin]

Let's look at those.

Dryad: Picture of both male and female.
Hag: Picture of both male and female.
Satyr: Picture of both male and female.
Medsa: Picture of both male and female.
Marilith: Only male.

Only one creature, but its sex can’t be determined from the art, and it does have feminine gender signifiers, though they are subtle.

The description wasn't changed just like hags, medusas, satyrs and dryads. It was changed to remove female.

And? Doesn’t mean they can’t be female.

 

[Charlaquin]

So why is every other creature that I've seen that has been changed like that showing both male and female, but not marilith?

There’s only one creature in the art, and it’s sex and gender are, at most, unclear.

 

[Incenjucar]

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?

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.

• Classic design has juxtaposition, which is a major tool in art of all kinds, and speaks to the duality of nature and evokes real demon mythology, which is chock full of chimeric beings
• Classic design evokes a lot of symbolism/semiotics that imply additional information.
  • Mariliths are generally depicted:
    • In artful poses, implying control, elegance, discipline, and dignity
    • With elegant jewelry, the kind associated with royalty or dancers (granted, this is worth some exoticism side-glancing)
    • With high cheek bones, also associated with royalty (or, again, some exoticism worth side-glances)
    • Crowns, royalty AGAIN
    • Carrying weapons with a variety of designs, implying that they have felled all kinds of foes and/or they have a taste for variety, travel, and adaptation, and in either case that they are masters of all kinds of weapons
    • Using bladed weapons, they clearly like blood
  • Planescape is way too 90s thin and soft and looks like a princess rather than a queen. I like it as art, but it lacks energy. Strikes me as a six-armed lillend more than a marilith

3E design is less boring, but looks like a scraggly minion, maybe classic marilith's rebellious emo teen:

• Giant melted baby forehead with one eye lower than the other and fish mouth is more mutant-like
• Body overall looks malnourished, frail, and soft
• Pose looks like they heard someone fart super loud and turned around to sneer
• Coloration is more interesting than 5.5, but is muddy and brown like an Xbox game
• Clothes are BDSM gear instead of regal jewelry, and the hooks and net make me think they're hitting a rave scene at the docks
• The weapon types are both drifting a bit, and are no longer showing signs of multiple origins, and are all pretty uniform - so edgy!

 

[dave2008]

Draw a humanoid version of those and it will almost always look male or female.

Not if I were to draw them. Heck, look at all the lizard folk (or tortle, or half-dragon) art in D&D. Can you tell which depicts males and females? It is a very human centric view to require human feminine features to determine a creatures (whether humanoid or not) sex.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Did you get that same sense of dissonance from the 3e design?

What about this design says “not a tactical commander”?

For me, the designs that matter the most to me are almost always the ones from the TSR editions. Those are the icons as far as I'm concerned, and what I always compare newer designs (favorably or not).

Of course, art is mostly just gravy in an RPG product to me anyway, so long as I know what it's supposed to look like. To the me the text always matters a lot more.

 

[Iry]

I will note that mariliths were covered in scales in 3e too (in the MM art at least). The 4e MM art also had scales on the upper body too, but in patches. So there is a several decades tradition of mariliths with scaled upper bodies.

Both the 3E and the 4E Mariliths only have a few patches of scales, and were mostly smooth skinned along the upper torso. The 3E is notable for having some kind of pseudo-scale hair going on. It's hard to tell what exactly is going on there.

Did you get that same sense of dissonance from the 3e design?

What about this design says “not a tactical commander”?

Yes, I got some sense of dissonance from the 3E design. Not nearly as much as this one, which makes me think of a different monster entirely, like some form of Yaun-ti Abomination or Behir with a human shaped face.

There's nothing in the picture to really indicate any kind of tactical command or logistical coordination at all. To be fair, hardly any of the Marilith pictures to date depict anything like that, so that's just my wishful desire.