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​

 

[Iry]

Don't even slightly agree here. Tactics are not lawful or chaotic, organization is Lawful. Demons respect of the simple hierarchy of obeying those stronger than them. The Marilith who commands lesser Demons would and should have them use simple tactics, even if they don't organize their subordinates

I always liked the lore of them being the tacticians, trying to herd other demons like a pile of cats towards any given objective. Demons certainly have far fewer needs than mortal armies, but logistics are a necessary thing when it comes to transporting the ammunition, weapons, gold for 'loth bribes, repair supplies for siege weapons, etc. We know great intelligence and cunning is very possible from several of the demon lords, and chaos has always been a spectrum of behaviors.

 

[Incenjucar]

The Abyss has no reason to be more chaotic than Arborea. Though it's hilarious to imagine slavering hordes of eladrin stepping all over each other in a fury trying to save the day.

 

[Azzy]

Man, the illustrations for kobolds in 2e is a huge departure from how they were depicted previously (and decidedly for the worse). Can I get my pitchforks and torches?

 

[Incenjucar]

Man, the illustrations for kobolds in 2e is a huge departure from how they were depicted previously (and decidedly for the worse). Can I get my pitchforks and torches?

I love Tony D's art but he -did- frequently draw in a way nobody else copied. The kobolds in the Humanoids handbook were also different than the dog-faced 1E ones.

 

[Hussar]

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.

Ok, that's a reading fail on your part.

I specifically said picture. I could not care less what they say in the text since this is a thread about art.

In the art of every single humanoid, they only depict males of the various humanoids. Does that mean that females do not exist? Do you actually need it specifically called out in the text before you will accept it as possible? That seems an awfully narrow view.

 

[Corinnguard]

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.

I will remind you a marilith is not a human/elf. It has 6-arms and a tail. Part of its body may look superficially human, but it is not. Heck, looking like a human/elf female could all be a canard (and is IMO) just like some caterpillars looks like snakes, insects look like twigs, non-venomous snakes look like venomous ones, etc.

If I tried to draw anyone of these animals, I would be hard pressed to find those sexual characteristics that explicitly say male or female to me. These characteristics would be very subtle compared to other animals whose characteristics are very obvious (bright, colorful feathers, size, vocalizations, scent etc.). I would have to include something in my writing that says I am drawing a male iguana or a female snake to satisfy the viewer's curiosity. Otherwise, I would be leaving some people guessing.

There are some people in RL who want affirmation as to which gender another person or animal happens to be. If they are male, they have to have these sexual characteristics. If they are female, they have to have those sexual characteristics. Why? I don't really know. So, maybe that's the case here?

For several editions, the Marilith has always been depicted with female sexual characteristics. But now they are depicted with features that are leaving some of us guessing.

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.

I think that if they left female somewhere in their lore, we wouldn't have prolonged this topic. It would have ended many pages ago and we would be discussing something else of interest.

 

[Hussar]

It's funny.

This thread is exactly why WotC cannot ever actually talk to us. No matter what they said here, they would get dumped on. If they came out and said, that they did it because they wanted to remove sexual charcteristics from mariliths, people would lose their minds. If they said that this was simply one artists' interpretation of the monster, people would lose their minds. No matter what WotC said, people would lose their minds.

This is why WotC never takes any chances. An art change of a monster that I'll bet no one in this thread has used in the past year, that barely ever appears in any adventures or supplements, has people so upset they are actually hitting that ignore button. :wow: I mean, holy crap, talk about over reaction.

I'm about to run Out of the Abyss. Now, here's a campaign with TONS of demons. The whole thing is chock a block with demons. Guess how many mariliths there are in the module. ZERO. Decent into Avernus. Just played that one recently. Guess how many mariliths there are. ZERO. There is a six armed gnoll (I posted the picture earlier) but, not ONE marilith.

Lessee, I've run Candlekeep, Horde of the Dragon Queen, Shattered Obelisk, and parts of Dungeon of the Mad Mage. You know how many Mariliths there are between all those adventures? TWO. Both in Dungeon of the Mad Mage and neither of them are particularly important. One is guarding a phylactery and the other is imprisoned. For a monster that is "deep in lore" it has barely appeared anywhere in the past ten years.

I mean, good grief, the only sort of "famous" mariliths come from a thirty year old video game and a book that's even older.

But, OH THIS IS SO IMPORTANT!!! Lore must be respected. Good grief.

 

[Hussar]

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.

I meant to quote this before and missed it. Got busy.

But, sure. I can see that. I was using the words that were given to me by someone else - they started with the brutish and unrefined thing, so, I just stuck with that. Totally see where you're coming from though.

 

[Azzy]

I love Tony D's art but he -did- frequently draw in a way nobody else copied. The kobolds in the Humanoids handbook were also different than the dog-faced 1E ones.

Oh, no, I mean the the pug-headed ones in the Monstrous Compendium, not the cute little DiTerlizzi guy from the later Monstrous Manual...

See that? That's sacrilege incarnate!

 

[Corinnguard]

Oh, no, I mean the the pug-headed ones in the Monstrous Compendium, not the cute little DiTerlizzi guy from the later Monstrous Manual...
View attachment 398469

See that? That's sacrilege incarnate!

Kobold evolution is more like it. They finally evolved into dragons.