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​

 

[Mecheon]

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

Nah, the 3E art was different. Had a background, showed the kraken as being massive due to size comparison, while the recent one is just by itself. The fandom wiki (as much as I loath that becursed website) has both pictures

Unless there's some random Dungeon adventure I'm not aware of in 3E, of course.

 

[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.

Hmm, let me try again . . . and maybe I am misunderstanding your points . . .

In classic D&D lore, of course the marilith was a female only demon. I don't think the vrock was male only, but maybe some past D&D supplement actually described them that way, I'd buy that with a credible reference. Were all (or most) demons male only with the marilith being the odd girl out? I don't think that's true either, but again, maybe in some supplement that's how they were described. Lore certainly has changed, evolved, and been inconsistent (even within product lines) over the years.

I'm glad this has changed recently, regardless of prior lore and canon. I think it makes the game better. I'm a big fan of keeping lore consistent . . . when it makes sense and avoids toxic tropes in fantasy. Mono-gendered monsters, for the most part, should be left in D&D's past. (I say mostly, because there certainly could be an exception that proves the rule, IMO. I can't think of one . . .)

But I also feel that demons and other types of monsters can be gendered and that can both make sense and make for good stories. Here's a story idea for some villains . . . fraternal twin mariliths, a brother and sister, born of a union between two other demons (of any type). Why not?

 

[Hussar]

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

You mean your module that you can’t remember the name of? After being so insistent that modules don’t count?

 

[Hussar]

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?

Again, you’re preaching to the converted. I agree with everything you are saying.

 

[Hussar]

Hmm, let me try again . . . and maybe I am misunderstanding your points . . .

). Why not?

Because demons are not a species. They are not alive. They are things. The only reason they might display gender is because their job is to corrupt mortals.

As soon as you start to treat them like a species, with a biology and whatnot, you are making big changes.

Demons are spawned/creatrd by the abyss itself. Why would they be gendered? What purpose would it serve? Demons can appear gendered. Sure. No problems there. That’s all properly mythic.

But gendered in order to make little baby demons? That’s not how it works. Bigger demons can raise up lesser demons and transform them into- as per the Minster Manual. But mommy Marilith gets together with daddy Marilith to make little baby mariliths? I mean if you want that in your game, more power to you.

But there is zero support for that interpretation in the game itself.

 

[Kain_Darkwind]

The marilith 2025 looks disappointingly low quality. I don't care for the change in art direction, but even with that in mind, it doesn't appear to be a good example of 'monstrous, non-female marilith'. It has all the characteristics of the least memorable pieces from the 4e MM.

As for the larger 'should there be X' discussion, the obvious answer is 'depends on the table', but I think the attempt to rid the game of human trait looking demons is misguided. It didn't make a lot of sense in 4e and no one has come up with any better reasons in the interim. If you wanted to go in a direction that doesn't seem to have had a lot of examples, adjusting the human to look like a different race than 'white' would be easy enough. Or give the face more serpentine features, or rock out snake hair like a gorgon. Not this...generic slugbug disappointment.

Also, for what it is worth, if you really wanted something monstrous looking, a demon with six human woman legs and the upper body of a serpent would be great.

 

[Echohawk]

I don't think the vrock was male only, but maybe some past D&D supplement actually described them that way, I'd buy that with a credible reference.

I covered the vrock in painful detail a few years back. There is no D&D lore stating that all vrocks are male. However, there also don't seem to be any vrocks who identify as female, only vrocks that identify as "he" or "it". Of course, this is certainly not proof that all vrocks are male.

 

[Dire Bare]

Because demons are not a species. They are not alive. They are things. The only reason they might display gender is because their job is to corrupt mortals.

As soon as you start to treat them like a species, with a biology and whatnot, you are making big changes.

Demons are spawned/creatrd by the abyss itself. Why would they be gendered? What purpose would it serve? Demons can appear gendered. Sure. No problems there. That’s all properly mythic.

But gendered in order to make little baby demons? That’s not how it works. Bigger demons can raise up lesser demons and transform them into- as per the Minster Manual. But mommy Marilith gets together with daddy Marilith to make little baby mariliths? I mean if you want that in your game, more power to you.

But there is zero support for that interpretation in the game itself.

Here is the part where I'm disagreeing with you and pushing back. I find your arguments strange and your need to pushback confusing.

Demons are things and not living species . . . in your view. Not in D&D canon of any edition.

Within D&D lore over the editions, demons have very much had gender and had the sex with each other. Not necessarily all demon types, but yes, demons do the sex with each other.

Now, if you find that stupid . . . okay, cool, change it in your campaign. Ignore that aspect of D&D classic lore. If we can change the marilith from a female only monster to a monster capable of being male, female, neither, or both, we can change other things too.

 

[Hussar]

Here is the part where I'm disagreeing with you and pushing back. I find your arguments strange and your need to pushback confusing.

Demons are things and not living species . . . in your view. Not in D&D canon of any edition.

Within D&D lore over the editions, demons have very much had gender and had the sex with each other. Not necessarily all demon types, but yes, demons do the sex with each other.

Now, if you find that stupid . . . okay, cool, change it in your campaign. Ignore that aspect of D&D classic lore. If we can change the marilith from a female only monster to a monster capable of being male, female, neither, or both, we can change other things too.

Yes in canon. It's right there in the Monster Manual. Demons are formed directly from the Abyss (or occasionally cursed by gods). They do not fit the definition of a "living species". They do not procreate. There is no evidence that they take in sustenance. They are no more a living species than undead or modrons.

No, Demons did not have sex with each other. I'm struggling to think of a single example outside of Planescape where that might be true. And no, most demons were never gendered. Again, what gender is a Vrock? A Glabrezu? A Balor?

Demons are not a species. They aren'T alive. They are things.

 

[Dire Bare]

Yes in canon. It's right there in the Monster Manual. Demons are formed directly from the Abyss (or occasionally cursed by gods). They do not fit the definition of a "living species". They do not procreate. There is no evidence that they take in sustenance. They are no more a living species than undead or modrons.

No, Demons did not have sex with each other. I'm struggling to think of a single example outside of Planescape where that might be true. And no, most demons were never gendered. Again, what gender is a Vrock? A Glabrezu? A Balor?

Demons are not a species. They aren'T alive. They are things.

Okay. You win.

It's not just your particular take on things or preference, but cold, hard fact.

Despite several folks in thread giving you counter examples you seem to dismiss for odd, personal reasons.

I'm out.