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.

mariliths.png

Left 2025 Marilith / Right 2014 Marilith
 

log in or register to remove this ad

As for the Armanite, they've consistently existed in every edition since 2e.

2e: Planes of Chaos, where they originally appeared as a Planescape supplement boxed set.
3e: Manual of Planes and Fiendish Codex I: Hordes of the Abyss
4e: Demonomicon
5e: Mordenkainen's Tome of Foes and Monsters of the Multiverse.

The editions after 2e mostly omitted things mentioned in the Habitat/Society and Ecology sections of the Armanite entry.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Back to subject of Mariliths and genders. The deluxe 2e Planescape adventure module Hellbound: the Blood War has a comic book written by Jeff Grubb and illustrated by Robh Ruppel and Tony Diterlizzi about the romance that ended in tragedy between a male Cambion and a female Marilith.

Though all things considered about the other things about Demons, many might be female, some might be male and some might be other genders.
 

So the marilith has changed. I know nothing more than the art OP posted, which I didn't care for. It suggests a change in the lore. People should have thoughts on that, whether they like it or not.
See, now this part? I totally agree. People ABSOLUTELY should have opinions.

What we shouldn't have is multiple people saying that the new art is WRONG. "I don't like the art." "It's not for me." "In my games, mariliths will always have the traditional look". All of those? That's 100% golden.

But when I get told, over and over again, that not only is the new art bad (a subjective opinion that we can endlessly discuss) but also flat out WRONG, then I will push back.
 

You are wrong about that.

The Positive Plane exists in 5e, I'm looking at the entry about that plane on page 208 of the 2024 DMG.

It's different from 2e and 3e in that it's been separated from the Inner Planes as an all encompassing plane around the rest of the multiverse.
Ahh, my bad. I was looking at the 2024 PHB. I helps to not have a reading fail. First paragraph on the page mentions the other planes. I was only looking at the diagram and the headings.
 

From Bastion of Broken Souls, p 4:

The Cathezar . . . is a fiend, but is an outcast among both demons and devils - she is half demon and half devil, spawn of a doubly unholy union.​

This doesn't tell us that the Cathezar was ever a baby. Nor that the "union" from which she was "spawned" was a sexual one in any conventional sense.
If you want to think otherwise...
 

I didn't say they were undead. But, that doesn't make them alive either. They're not alive, they're fiends. They're not humanoids.

Would you say that Modrons have biology? Are they gendered? When you start looking at most planar creatures, very few actually have any specific gender. Elementals are not gendered. @Maxperson has made a huge deal of the fact that we don't have any pictures of a non-boobie marilith until now. Does that mean that all genie-kind are male? I've never seen a D&D picture of a female genie of any kind. So, by this logic, they must all be male. It's impossible for them not to be male.
I've never said or implied that. "Boobie" and all the implications that go with that childishness are the creations of you and your side. Not mine.
 

And, yes, I can see that. But, the topic it hand is the new Monster Manual's depiction of Mariliths. The only reason I can see that kinda makes sense is if people are insisting that older canon from earlier editions must be adhered to. Granted, whether or not it was canon is a bit of a wobbly premise, but, that's about the only justification that I can see.
I know. Why has there been so much focus on this particular monster again? Every monster since 1e has their looks and their lore played around with by every design team that has worked for TSR/WoTC.

As for adhering to older canon from earlier editions, people are free to do so. There is no commandment in D&D that says 'Thou shall adhere to official canon when it doesn't suit you or your players.' DMs are free to make new canon for their settings.
 


This is a thread titled D&D Marilith Is Far More Bestial In 2025, so a focus on the marilith shouldn't be unexpected. That said, I'm actually a little surprised that more than a hundred pages in, the thread is still on-topic!
Same here. I wonder if any of the other monsters in the new Monster Manual are jealous at all the attention 'she' is getting.

As for staying on topic, so far there has been talk on demonic biology, demonic reproduction, demonic gender identity... :p Demonology 101 stuff.
 

@Alzrius talks about "positive energy". That doesn't exist in 5e.
Positive energy "doesn't exist in 5E" huh? Let's look through the 5E SRD and see what we can find:

Heal: "A surge of positive energy washes through the creature, causing it to regain 70 hit points."

The paladin's sacred weapon use of their channel divinity power: "As an action, you can imbue one weapon that you are holding with positive energy, using your Channel Divinity."

The cleric's Life domain description: "The Life domain focuses on the vibrant positive energy—one of the fundamental forces of the universe—that sustains all life."

From the Casting a Spell section of the rules, where it talks about schools of magic (specifically evocation): "Others channel positive energy to heal wounds."

There's also a section on that website's monster filter where you can filter monsters by plane of origin, including the Positive Energy plane.

Bryan Cranston Mic Drop GIF
 

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top