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]

I know this wasn’t your point, but it’s an interesting thought. It could be that they don’t die from malnourishment or dehydration, but still experience hunger and thirst if they don’t eat or drink, and have those sensations sated when they do. It would certainly fit with the idea of the Abyss being a literal hell, if those who existed there were forced to endure the pain of starvation without the release of death, and could be driven to acts like cannibalism despite not actually needing to eat, just to get temporary relief from their hunger. Alternatively, maybe they can actually die from deprivation, and death just causes them to be reformed at the bottom of the hierarchy again. I mean, isn’t that what happens when they’re killed? Makes sense for it to happen if they expire for other reasons as well.

It's clear that they breathe, since they've been affected by things like fear gas, sleeping gas, etc. from the beginning.

How I do food with my fiends is that they get their nourishment from souls/soul larvae. If it's some sort of hunger fiend, it will also feel hunger and need to eat solid foods. Otherwise, it's just an enjoyable thing that they do. Kinda like Superman. He gets his nourishment from the sun, but Clark Kent still goes out to dinner and enjoys his food and drink.

 

[pemerton]

Why would demons have the biology, both male and female, to have babies with mortals, but not each other? What sense does that make?

Because demons and devils having children with mortals is not biology, it's dark magic?

 

[pemerton]

Because, it's about corrupting mortals not about procreation.

Right.

There was not nearly this much thought put into the original creation of these monsters, and everything else has been accreted by subsequent and disparate authors over the decades most of whom never discussed things with the previous authors.

Right:

I personally don't think the game supports trying to reason about this sort of thing.

 

[MonsterEnvy]

It's worth noting that there's at least one Planescape product which contradicts this. In the Planes of Conflict boxed set, in the "Liber Benevolentiae" booklet, it mentions (in the "Labyrinth of Fiery Doom" entry in the section on Karasuthra, the third layer of the Beastlands) that the rumors about the red dragon and his succubus lover residing there are false: they're actually an agathinon aasimon (i.e. an angel) named Janarr and an erinyes devil named Nalura, with the last paragraph noting that the couple are expecting their first child. (And to be clear, Nalura is identified as female, and Janarr as male.)

Erinyes are noted as the sole exception in Faces of Evil.

But Erinyes are presented very differently in 1e and 2e as they are more Devil versions of Succubi rather than their more modern Fury incarnation.

 

[Sulicius]

I have noticed zero pushback on the idea of mariliths having a variety of forms. The conflict is around replacing one singular form with another.

Why does anyone believe this art replaces all other art of mariliths? This exaggeration would obviously make one unhappy.

 

[Alzrius]

Erinyes are noted as the sole exception in Faces of Evil.

Hm, can you specify where in the book it says that? Because it's not under the "Birth" section (page 20) that I can see, which is where it says that male baatezu are fertile but females are not.

 

[MonsterEnvy]

Hm, can you specify where in the book it says that? Because it's not under the "Birth" section (page 20) that I can see, which is where it says that male baatezu are fertile but females are not.

It may not have been Faces of Evil. Will double check the source shortly

 

[Voadam]

Erinyes are noted as the sole exception in Faces of Evil.

But Erinyes are presented very differently in 1e and 2e as they are more Devil versions of Succubi rather than their more modern Fury incarnation.

2e made them explicitly beautiful tempters starting in MC 8 and continuing into their portrayal in 3e as beautiful tempter devils, but I think 1e is pretty strongly fury oriented with a focus on physically kidnapping mortals.

Here is the text of the 1e erinyes:

The erinyes are the devils common to Hell’s second plane as well as the kind
most commonly sent forth to garner more souls. They are female but can appear
as male. They are armed with a magical dagger which drips a caustic venom
and causes terribly painful wounds (save versus poison or faint for 1-6 melee
rounds). They also carry a rope of entanglement with which to bind their
victims. Erinyes can be struck with normal weapons. They can, at will, cause
fear in all who look at them (saving throw versus wand is applicable). In
addition, they have the power to do any one of the following during any turn or
melee round, as applicable: detect invisible, locate object, invisibility, polymorph
self, produce flame, or summon another erinyes (25% chance of success).
Erinyes are strong — 18/01, but no hit/damage bonuses are applicable.
They will pursue evil persons unceasingly in order to take them alive into Hell.
They will sometimes bargain with others, hoping to tempt them into evil doing.

 

[Azzy]

For what reason? You can make up a justification to explain it, but it still won't make much sense.

Because why would demons (devils, yugoloths, etc.), that are spiritual beings that are exemplars of a particular alignment/plane, have a biology like mortals especially when that's not how new demons (or whatever) come into existence?

Demons can't procreate with other demons, because they need a mortal. Devils can't procreate with other devils, because they need a mortal. But a devil can procreate with a demon(lore that isn't contradicted anywhere in the core rules). How does that make any sense at all?

All explanations in and extrapolations from the existing (and sometimes conflicting) lore are going to all end up with some inconsistency because there's never been a consistent vision and the various authors that contributed to the accumulated lore were writing whatever they thought sounded cool to them. So, ignore the parts that aren't consistent with the approach that you wish to take in your games.

You might as well say that they can't procreate because they watch Spongebob.

To be fair, watching Spongebob would make me not want to procreate.

 

[Incenjucar]

Why does anyone believe this art replaces all other art of mariliths? This exaggeration would obviously make one unhappy.

Since 3E, art in books is very deliberate in how it conveys the new status quo. They do not automatically embrace previous editions as canon, and there have been massive retcons over the years.

As I've stated multiple times in this thread, the moment there's proof that this is just an expansion instead of a retcon I no longer have objections beyond not finding the art compelling. WotC just needs to say "oh yeah the old styles are also still in" and then it's not a big deal.

The 5E version is a shoddy statblock, but I haven't seen the 5.5E one.