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]

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.

To me, and maybe because I have raised dozens of reptiles myself, the 3e version appears to be completely covered in fine scales (snakes in particular can be very smooth). There is little to no difference in how the skin on the tail and torso are rendered. Now, Iwill admit it is a poor image so it is hard to tell, but hat is how it reads to me. A better image might tell us more.

 

[Charlaquin]

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.

It does look more bestial, as in, more like a beast - more reptilian, to be specific. I definitely agree that, as a demon, it should look bestial, as it is literally inhuman and demonic. I was pushing back against “brutish” because it seemed to be getting used as synonymous with “unrefined.” This provided critics with the ground of “it used to look like a tactical genius now it doesn’t,” which I don’t think is accurate, and indeed seemed to be a red herring. The critique, as near as I can tell, is ultimately about a perception of this design as being less feminine, and in particular less aligned with a specific set of standards for femininity, which I don’t think are good standards to be trying to preserve. This is, ultimately, another expression of the same argument that keeps happening in the video game space, where people complain about studios “uglifying” female protagonists. This is a much less overt example of it than people who got angry Ciri looks like a grown-ass woman in the Witcher 4 trailer or that Aloy’s face has hair on it in Horizon Forbidden West. But the complaints are coming from the same place - policing femininity.

 

[Incenjucar]

The marilith never looked like a genius tactician. It did frequently look regal and elegant.

 

[Charlaquin]

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.

Interesting, as it is fully scaled just like this one is. To me, the notable differences seem to be the color (tan and brown instead of blue), the frame (sleek and slender instead of muscular and with significant asiposity), and the presence of mammalian (and specifically human-like) breasts.

I don’t want to mischaracterize you, so correct me if I’m wrong, but this really seems to come down to the 2024 design not hewing as closely to a particular feminine beauty standard.

 

[Charlaquin]

The marilith never looked like a genius tactician. It did frequently look regal and elegant.

And this one doesn’t?

 

[Maxperson]

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?

All from the MMs
1e orcs: "females equal to 50% of the number of males, young equal to 100% of the number of males."
2e orcs: "Females average 6 inches shorter than males."
3e orcs: "Females are slightly smaller."
4e orcs: Doesn't mention, but it appears that 4e went super light on lore. However, they breed, so...
5e orcs: "Orcs are mostly patriarchal" which means that some are matriarchal. indirect proof of females. Also mentions orc procreation.

4e, the light lore edition is the only MM not to mention directly or indirectly, female orcs.

Lore or pictures, male and female are there. But in 5.5e, they went out of their way to make male and female pictures of the creatures they altered. Except for marilith, where they removed female from both the picture and the lore.

 

[Charlaquin]

Lore or pictures, male and female are there. But in 5.5e, they went out of their way to make male and female pictures of the creatures they altered. Except for marilith, where they removed female from both the picture and the lore.

Let’s not be coy about it. They didn’t remove “female” from the picture, they removed modern Western feminine beauty standards from the picture.

 

[Maxperson]

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

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

I mean, they went out of their way to deliberatelly include male and female pictures of every race that they changed to have both, except for marilith from which they deliberately removed female from both art and lore. But if you choose to believe that marilith is just like those others, I suppose nothing that can make you see that they are treating them very differently for a reason.

 

[Maxperson]

Let’s not be coy about it. They didn’t remove “female” from the picture, they removed modern Western feminine beauty standards from the picture.

And eastern. And southern. And northern. Let's not be coy about it, they removed human standards of female from the picture. Western has nothing to do with it.

 

[Incenjucar]

And this one doesn’t?

At best they resemble Darkness from Legend, the whiny devil baby. They do have some noble features, but not a regal air because they're too busy catching flies.

Open mouth and inward-curled body position suggests a very clumsy hacky combat style that reminds me of a toddler hitting their toys.

They also have a neck as thick as their waist, though at least it doesn't bulge like the rest of their body.