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​

 

[Older Beholder]

I think Fiends are one of those areas where lore (or too much of it) can be detrimental.
Like horror movies that lose the fear factor once things are explained.

For my own homebrew, there isn't a lot of known lore for fiends.
Demons spread misinformation, so, anything you think you know about Demons is probably wrong anyway.

It's also just hard to get accurate info... The scholar that was studying the reproductive methods of Mariliths, no one's seen him since he said he had a lead on a direct source of information.

Taking the 2014 pic as an example, the Marilith has custom made armor fashioned from leather and metal. Are there Demons that oversee sweatshops in the Abyss where this stuff is made? Does adding that level of detail help or hinder the verisimilitude?

 

[Dire Bare]

While yes I made the mistake of giving a single example, I would point out that I’ve never, ever in any supplement, in Dragon magazine or any module seen a single hint that demons need to eat.

No farms, no kitchens, nothing. Not so much as a suggestion that demons require any sort of nourishment.

So no I don’t think it’s ridiculous. What I find ridiculous is people leaning on decades old material from several editions ago that have zero relevance today as “proof” of anything.

Need to eat? To bring in nourishment like you or I, or NEED to eat, pyschospiritually . . . whether it be the flesh of mortals or weird demon crops farmed on the 223rd layer of the Abyss . . .

This argument overall is getting into the weeds and into ridiculous levels of silliness (although I suspect we don't all see the silliness as the same things).

The original argument (I think) was a canon one . . . do demons have gender and/or sexual characteristics? In 5E canon, it's not definitive, but implied that yes, in fact, they do. In the broader D&D lore stretching back 50 years . . . the answer is inconsistent and changes with the supplement. And sometimes gets weirdly specific. This demon yes, but demons overall, maybe not . . .

But within broad D&D lore (over 50 years), demons, devils, and other spiritual beings are 1) spontaneously generated from the "material" of their plane, 2) or transformed from mortal souls, 3) or corrupted beings into demonic forms, 4) or made by a loving demon mommy and daddy. Sexually. Yes.

Maybe that doesn't make sense to you. Okay. But it's there, like or not.

The argument then morphed into . . . do demons have physiology at all? Do they need to eat? Breathe? Poop? And again, the 5E canon answer isn't definitive, but implied that yes, in fact they do. In the broader D&D lore, again it's constantly changing and inconsistent . . . but it's there.

Maybe that doesn't make sense to you. Okay. But it's there, like it or not.

Ultimately however, we are all arguing about something that just doesn't freaking matter in the slightest. If your vision of demons do not have any sort of physiology, do not need to eat, breath, poop, or have sex . . . sounds boring to me, but who cares? But trying to pin down a canonical answer to the question is a madman's game.

My god, imagine someone asking Crawford this question at a convention . . . I really doubt the D&D team, of any edition, put as much thought into this ridiculousness as is going on in this thread.

And really, you know what the real, true canon answer is? Whatever serves the story at the moment, that is canon. Every "citation" others have brought up in this thread, and that you have summarily dismissed because it doesn't fit YOUR narrative, wasn't an attempt at defining the "ecology" of demons, but simply what the writers/designers felt worked in the moment. That's it.

If you question is, that doesn't make sense to me, convince me otherwise . . . well, we can have that conversation about SHOULD demons have physiological needs. But you frame this as a question of canon, ask for citations . . . and then reject them, move the goalposts, and make ridiculous claims like, "Well, if Descent into Avernus didn't detail demon farms, then clearly they do not exist . . ."

You, my friend, are exhausting to have a discussion with at times.

 

[Hussar]

If you question is, that doesn't make sense to me, convince me otherwise . . . well, we can have that conversation about SHOULD demons have physiological needs. But you frame this as a question of canon, ask for citations . . . and then reject them, move the goalposts, and make ridiculous claims like, "Well, if Descent into Avernus didn't detail demon farms, then clearly they do not exist . . ."

You, my friend, are exhausting to have a discussion with at times

I'm not the one bludgeoning with the canon hammer here. Throughout the thread, I've been REPEATEDLY told that this version of the Marilith should not exist. That mariliths MUST be female because that's the canon. Every single argument to the contrary has been brushed aside or bludgeoned with the canon hammer.

And I'm the one that's being exhausting? FFS, I'm arguing that you should do whatever makes you happy. I look at this version of Mariliths and think, "Hey, that's a kinda cool, original take on an old monster. Neat". But, time and time again, I'm told that this image is WRONG. It SHOULD NOT EXIST in the books for a whole bunch of nonsensical reasons.

Because, remember, the only reason that biology came up AT ALL was because various posters INSIST that demons MUST HAVE GENDER.

So, if you're going to get frustrated here, howzabout addressing the actual issue of the thread instead of having a go at me?

 

[Dire Bare]

I'm not the one bludgeoning with the canon hammer here. Throughout the thread, I've been REPEATEDLY told that this version of the Marilith should not exist. That mariliths MUST be female because that's the canon. Every single argument to the contrary has been brushed aside or bludgeoned with the canon hammer.

And I'm the one that's being exhausting? FFS, I'm arguing that you should do whatever makes you happy. I look at this version of Mariliths and think, "Hey, that's a kinda cool, original take on an old monster. Neat". But, time and time again, I'm told that this image is WRONG. It SHOULD NOT EXIST in the books for a whole bunch of nonsensical reasons.

Because, remember, the only reason that biology came up AT ALL was because various posters INSIST that demons MUST HAVE GENDER.

So, if you're going to get frustrated here, howzabout addressing the actual issue of the thread instead of having a go at me?

I have. Multiple times. Of course, we're closing in on 1000 posts in the thread, so there's been a lot of drift and a lot of cycling back. It is the way of things.

Are demons gendered, or should demons be gendered, is a different question than, does the marilith need to be only be a six-armed hawt female wearing not much on top of a snaky bottom. Can a marilith be male? Can they be not hawt or wearing clothes? Can they be more bestial as depicted in the 2025 art?

To me, allowing male and female mariliths doesn't make sense if demons cannot be gendered. Is the traditionally female marilith just a non-gendered demon shaped like a sexy lady with snaky parts? Which . . . is a fine interpretation I suppose, just not the one WotC seems to be leaning towards currently, if they are leaning at all on the issue.

To cycle back to what is important here (to me anyways) is that WotC should very much move away from mono-gendered monsters like the marilith, medusa and hag. Having these monsters now enjoy the full breadth and diversity of gender that is out there is a positive move that opens up creativity and storytelling while moving away from toxic stereotypes in fantasy and myth. WotC certainly hasn't solved the toxic tropes problem in fantasy, but they are making a bit of progress here.

Whether some of those monsters have sex or not and make babies . . . that's less important (to me anyways), but I get frustrated with some of the torturous arguments against the idea.

If, in your campaign, demons are not truly gendered creatures but rather spiritual corruptions and mockeries of mortal frailties that might engage in stereotypical gendered behaviors and appearances . . . but not out of a physiological need but rather in mockery of the mortals they lust to destroy . . . that sounds cool and certainly works. But it does not match up with the D&D lore going back 50 years. Which is okay and no reason not to embrace it, but . . . why argue against the canonicity of what is rather than simply what you prefer for your own campaigns?

Or, if in your campaign, demons are bizarre creations of evil that, while not mortal, still engage in all of the suffering and horror mortals are doomed to . . . including hunger, starvation, lust, love/hate, defecation, disease, malnutrition . . . and increase their numbers through spontaneous generation, corruption, and even sexual reproduction . . . that sounds cool too and also works. And is a lot closer to how demons have been depicted in D&D lore going back 50 years. Inconsistent and constantly changing lore, to be sure. It sounds almost . . . chaotic!

 

[QuentinGeorge]

Also I will say in regards to the new Marilith, don't forget the Kraken situation

The Kraken got a whole massive redesign that turned it from "Giant squid" into "Huge sea monster" in 5E. But, despite this, in Ghosts of Saltmarsh, where there's a baby kraken? Its based on the old 3E artwork, even replicating the colours

This Marilith might look like this, but future ones might look like anything

It wasn't "based on it".... it was the exact art from the Dungeon adventure back in 2006. They just reprinted it as is.

 

[Hussar]

To cycle back to what is important here (to me anyways) is that WotC should very much move away from mono-gendered monsters like the marilith, medusa and hag. Having these monsters now enjoy the full breadth and diversity of gender that is out there is a positive move that opens up creativity and storytelling while moving away from toxic stereotypes in fantasy and myth. WotC certainly hasn't solved the toxic tropes problem in fantasy, but they are making a bit of progress here.

Now I'm truly confused. Why would you think I'm arguing against any of this? I 100% agree with everything you are saying. It's the other side of this discussion that is insisting that you are wrong and that WotC should NOT include a "full breadth and diversity of gender".

I'm beginning to think that you aren'T perhaps seeing the other half of the conversation and you're thinking that I'm arguing something that I'm not. The only reason I talked about demons not really having gender is because someone insisted that all demons must have gender. That even vrocks are all male and the only female demon are mariliths. That every single demon is locked into a single gender.

That's what I've been pushing back against for a lot of pages.

 

[Maxperson]

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

And demons and devils having children with each other?

 

[Maxperson]

Because they are not making babies to perpetuate the species or through any biological drive but because they are corrupting souls and sowing destruction.

So does the demon corrupt the devil's soul, or vice versa? Because they can have babies with one another.

 

[MonsterEnvy]

So does the demon corrupt the devil's soul, or vice versa? Because they can have babies with one another.

According to that one thing that I don't really understand. The most recent lore is that Devils can't have kids at all expect with mortals. And I prefer it that way myself. Fiends don't have to have anything like normal biology that makes sense.

 

[Dire Bare]

Now I'm truly confused. Why would you think I'm arguing against any of this? I 100% agree with everything you are saying. It's the other side of this discussion that is insisting that you are wrong and that WotC should NOT include a "full breadth and diversity of gender".

I'm beginning to think that you aren'T perhaps seeing the other half of the conversation and you're thinking that I'm arguing something that I'm not. The only reason I talked about demons not really having gender is because someone insisted that all demons must have gender. That even vrocks are all male and the only female demon are mariliths. That every single demon is locked into a single gender.

That's what I've been pushing back against for a lot of pages.

Oh, I'm definitely missing part of the conversation due to the ignore feature . . .

I guess what I'm trying to get at here . . .

Embracing the new direction of WotC's lore and art direction with the marilith, medusa, hag, etc is a separate issue . . . for me at least . . . than whether demons (and devils, angels, etc) can/should be gendered creatures or creatures with physiological characteristics. And how that has been represented in D&D lore over time.

And, of course, I might not be fully understanding some of your arguments. But, I can agree with part of your viewpoints and disagree with other parts!

I don't think all demons must have gender . . . but I also think that demons can and do have gender, as depicted in D&D lore in the past. Not so much demon types locked into specific genders, but simply demons being capable of being gendered beings with all that implies. I support the idea of expanding the gender diversity of monsters, but that doesn't mean gender doesn't matter or exist for demons or other creatures.

And . . . (I'm being silly here) all vrocks are male? Was that ever a canon thing? I've always envisioned vrocks as having both genders but . . . how would you even know? If bird demons follow real world bird gender differences, wouldn't all drab, gray vrocks be female? And any male vrocks have brightly colored, flamboyant plumage?