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. 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.

While the monsters have had their looks and lore played around with, generally it has been within the bounds of what 1e set forth. Especially with the pictures which I can't think of an instance where it has changed this drastically. Pictures of the marilith have been variations of female torso and snake body. Variations of glabrezu have had 4 arms, two of which are pincers. The owlbear variations have shown some combination of owl and wolf. And so on.

What we have with the marilith picture is if the owlbear photo suddenly changed to show a mix of owl and wolf, but retained the owlbear name.

 

[SkidAce]

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.

Am I the only one here thinking that this is an incredibly ridiculous position to take? That just because all the pictures we've had of a given monster are male, that is the one true version of that creature and must never, ever change? No original takes on that monster must ever be shown? We must adhere to this one vision of the monster that is forever graven in stone?

2nd Edition Monstrous Manual. (apologies for redundancy, I reply as I read or I lose track, my bad)

 

[Maxperson]

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.

Greater Restoration imbues positive energy to undo a debilitating effect as well.

In the DMG dualism references positive and negative energy. And the Wand of Orcus requires it to be taken to the Positive Energy Plane to be destroyed.

 

[Corinnguard]

While the monsters have had their looks and lore played around with, generally it has been within the bounds of what 1e set forth.

There aren't that many people today who know or are even aware of the bounds set down by 1e. That would require a History check. It's more likely that people are going to assume the D&D edition they were first introduced to sets the bounds of what came later.

 

[Maxperson]

There aren't that many people today who know or are even aware of the bounds set down by 1e. That would require a History check. It's more likely that people are going to assume the D&D edition they were first introduced to sets the bounds of what came later.

Sure, but whether they know it or not, the pictures were still within those bounds. I've lived in California for 48 of my 1 month shy of 55 years and I couldn't tell you where the California borders are, but those bounds haven't changed.

 

[Corinnguard]

Sure, but whether they know it or not, the pictures were still within those bounds. I've lived in California for 48 of my 1 month shy of 55 years and I couldn't tell you where the California borders are, but those bounds haven't changed.

True. Eventually they'll find out on their own or someone else will point it out to them. Nice I am six months shy from my 55th (most of them in Michigan).

 

[Incenjucar]

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.

The accusations of ulterior motives and the rather expansive hypotheticals and disagreements about general canon which are proxy for other opinions have extended this far beyond what it might otherwise be.

Ultimately, some people prefer the new one and some people prefer the old one, and how dare they.

 

[Maxperson]

True. Eventually they'll find out on their own or someone else will point it out to them. Nice I am six months shy from my 55th (most of them in Michigan).

My other 7 were in Michigan. In a small town near Coldwater/Battle Creek.

 

[Dire Bare]

If I'm being totally honest, it's the whole Planescape thing that loses me. I know virtually nothing about Planescape, so anything that appeared in Planescape supplements passed me by. @Kobold Avenger mentioned Armanites. I have no idea what those are. I presume they are a Planescape thing. Same goes for all those source books from the 90's that people point to. Great Modron March? I could not possibly care less to be honest. It's not part of any D&D that I've ever played.

I just so wish that people would keep Planescape out of discussions about the core of the game. We're discussing how Mariliths are presented in Core D&D. How they are presented in a specific setting is only applicable to that setting. Anything that happens in that setting doesn't matter outside that setting as far as core D&D is concerned. We don't insist that all Far Realms creatures are Daelkyr after all. The Shining Host only matters in Eberron. Tiamat is not the Queen of the Abyss, and, outside of Dragonlance, there is no such thing as the "Queen of the Abyss".

So, quoting thirty or forty year old texts at me for how the game "must be" is going to fall on deaf ears. I simply do not buy the idea that anything that is for the Planescape setting has any relevance here. The fact that Planescape material, from what I'm seeing here, is often conflicting means that you can argue pretty much anything and it's still true. That's why I keep sticking to the core books and current books.

You ask for examples and citations and then dismiss the examples and citations others have provided because, somehow in your view, Planescape shouldn't count and folks who disagree with your view are "cherry-picking". YOU are cherry-picking by trying to tell us what lore counts and what doesn't in this discussion. Sigh.

This is the other problem I have with these discussions. Everyone wants to cherry pick which edition they want to talk from. @Alzrius talks about "positive energy". That doesn't exist in 5e. There's no positive material plane in 5e. That's been gone from D&D for a long time. Cure Wounds? That affects ANY creature. Full stop. Welcome to 2024. Has nothing whatsoever to do with any sort of energy.

Now, since there have been changes to the game over the years, why would people insist on lore that's no longer relevant?

This is a discussion about how lore and art have changed between editions, from what came before to the new 2024 revision. For folks to bring up how various creatures have been depicted throughout the history of D&D is very relevant.

People are giving you FACTS about how the marilith and other creatures have been depicted over time. Some of them are USING those facts to argue against your point-of-view, others are just presenting the facts because . . . well, we're nerds and we like doing that sort of thing.

The marilith and other creatures, in past versions of D&D, have been mono-gendered. Demons have been described in many ways over the years, and have been described as having gendered, sexual, and physiological characteristics and needs. All facts. Whether you like them or not, whether they came from Planescape or one of the many versions of the D&D core rules.

If ultimately, after just accepting the facts of D&D lore over the years, you decide demons having physiological needs is dumb, regardless if it exists in past lore . . . GREAT. I don't think anybody has a problem with that.

You and I both agree that mariliths and other creatures now having multiple genders is a good change. Others don't. Nobody is changing their minds at this point.

 

[Hussar]

You and I both agree that mariliths and other creatures now having multiple genders is a good change. Others don't. Nobody is changing their minds at this point.

This is honestly the ONLY thing that I'm actually arguing for.

But, since you cannot see the other half of the conversation, you keep insisting that I'm arguing for things that I'm not. If you actually want to get involved in a conversation, maybe, just maybe, learn what the conversation is actually about instead of playing Chinese Whispers and getting frustrated.

All the other sidebar stuff about biology and everything else is because the other half of the conversation is laser beam focused on derailing the conversation at every single turn in order to try to score Internet points. Bringing up endless half-remembered examples and failing to actually bring any real evidence to the table.

But, since you absolutely refuse to actually bother to learn what the conversation is about, you're going to keep having a go at me because you just don't understand what the conversation is actually about.