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​

 

[dave2008]

Then why has each demon type been described pretty consistently for the past 50 years?

I don't concede that demons have been consistently described as a "species*," but the types have been fairly consistent. Why that is can be for several reason, but I think it mostly boils down to it being a game / marketing. Once "types" are established it becomes easier (or lazier depending on how you want to look at it) to represent them in a particular way. Humans, and in particular corporations (like TSR and WotC), are moved to generally take the easier and safer option. There could be more reasons, but I think they are less likely / impactful to the consistency of demons.

1. Its a game and people/companies take the easy, simple, safe, lazy route typically.
2. Small sample size. We have only ever had a handful of demons described against the billions/trillions/??? that exist. This is a statistically insignificant quantity to determine the "consistency" of a type.
3. Short timeframe. 50 years is nothing compared to the immeasurable amount of time demons have existing. That timeframe is statistically insignificant amount of time to determine the "consistency" of a type and possibly even to account for changes.
4. I could give you "lore" reasons, but that would be just me making up lore to fill in gaps or what makes sense to me / I use in my games. The "official" lore that I am aware of is a bit thin and nebulous on this issue (though I don't know it all that is for sure).

*I want to be clear here that what I am pushing against is that demons, or any Outsider really, are a "species" in a scientific RL sense. IMO, they are manifestations of the outer planes (and in D&D terms this means Alignment). A species is a defined biological thing, and Outsiders do not, IMO, meet that definition.

 

[Dire Bare]

I don't concede that demons have been consistently described as a "species*," but the types have been fairly consistent. Why that is can be for several reason, but I think it mostly boils down to it being a game / marketing. Once "types" are established it becomes easier (or lazier depending on how you want to look at it) to represent them in a particular way. Humans, and in particular corporations (like TSR and WotC), are moved to generally take the easier and safer option. There could be more reasons, but I think they are less likely / impactful to the consistency of demons.

1. Its a game and people/companies take the easy, simple, safe, lazy route typically.
2. Small sample size. We have only ever had a handful of demons described against the billions/trillions/??? that exist. This is a statistically insignificant quantity to determine the "consistency" of a type.
3. Short timeframe. 50 years is nothing compared to the immeasurable amount of time demons have existing. That timeframe is statistically insignificant amount of time to determine the "consistency" of a type and possibly even to account for changes.
4. I could give you "lore" reasons, but that would be just me making up lore to fill in gaps or what makes sense to me / I use in my games. The "official" that I am aware of is a bit thin and nebulous on this issue (though I don't know it all that is for sure).

*I want to be clear here that what I am pushing against is that demons, or any Outsider really, are a "species" in a scientific RL sense. IMO, they are manifestations of the outer planes (and in D&D terms this means Alignment). A species is a defined biological thing, and Outsiders do not, IMO, meet that definition.

Type, species, race, manifestation . . . we're trying to argue semantics over fantasy creatures. Are demons a "species"? Trying to use a real world definition of species doesn't quite fit, as supernatural creatures don't really exist.

It's similar to elves vs humans . . . are they different species? The only sentient species we've got IRL is just us humans. How we describe the differences between humans, elves, and demons is all made up.

In existing D&D classic lore, demons HAVE been described as "manifestations" of the planes AND also as "types" or "species" that can reproduce biologically, simultaneously! Take and use what makes sense to you rather than arguing over what is the "right" way to view these supernatural beings.

Personally, I love the idea that demons of chaos are created in all sorts of ways incongruent and inconsistent with each other. It's weird, breaks all the "rules" and is a perfect fit for creatures of chaos. I love the idea of scholars (in universe) arguing over whether demons should be classified as "species" or "types" . . . but the arguments get tired on the forums between gamers.

 

[Incenjucar]

I don't concede that demons have been consistently described as a "species*," but the types have been fairly consistent. Why that is can be for several reason, but I think it mostly boils down to it being a game / marketing. Once "types" are established it becomes easier (or lazier depending on how you want to look at it) to represent them in a particular way. Humans, and in particular corporations (like TSR and WotC), are moved to generally take the easier and safer option. There could be more reasons, but I think they are less likely / impactful to the consistency of demons.

1. Its a game and people/companies take the easy, simple, safe, lazy route typically.
2. Small sample size. We have only ever had a handful of demons described against the billions/trillions/??? that exist. This is a statistically insignificant quantity to determine the "consistency" of a type.
3. Short timeframe. 50 years is nothing compared to the immeasurable amount of time demons have existing. That timeframe is statistically insignificant amount of time to determine the "consistency" of a type and possibly even to account for changes.
4. I could give you "lore" reasons, but that would be just me making up lore to fill in gaps or what makes sense to me / I use in my games. The "official" that I am aware of is a bit thin and nebulous on this issue (though I don't know it all that is for sure).

*I want to be clear here that what I am pushing against is that demons, or any Outsider really, are a "species" in a scientific RL sense. IMO, they are manifestations of the outer planes (and in D&D terms this means Alignment). A species is a defined biological thing, and Outsiders do not, IMO, meet that definition.

While I agree that species is too naturalistic and mundane a term for what demons are, "species" is an arbitrary and oft-debated topic in the scientific community. Sometimes what makes one species into two is literally "there is a mountain between them" and if the barrier is gone they would become one species again.

Demons are a pattern of outcomes.

 

[Kobold Avenger]

Personally, I love the idea that demons of chaos are created in all sorts of ways incongruent and inconsistent with each other. It's weird, breaks all the "rules" and is a perfect fit for creatures of chaos. I love the idea of scholars (in universe) arguing over whether demons should be classified as "species" or "types" . . . but the arguments get tired on the forums between gamers.

It's definitely a point I've being trying to make about Demons, is that they're creatures of chaos and don't necessarily follow the same rules for things such as meta-biology. But many of them are "biological" in many senses of the idea and concept.

And of course biologically creating a Demon can certainly be more than mating, as some might reproduce by growing a tumor on their body that becomes a bud that grows to full size (it's also mythological like Athena budding from Zeus), many do in fact lay eggs as I've seen references to Chasme (who are like flies or mosquitoes) laying eggs, and there might be the cases of being like Seahorses with pregnancy.

 

[Hussar]

Type, species, race, manifestation . . . we're trying to argue semantics over fantasy creatures. Are demons a "species"? Trying to use a real world definition of species doesn't quite fit, as supernatural creatures don't really exist.

It's similar to elves vs humans . . . are they different species? The only sentient species we've got IRL is just us humans. How we describe the differences between humans, elves, and demons is all made up.

In existing D&D classic lore, demons HAVE been described as "manifestations" of the planes AND also as "types" or "species" that can reproduce biologically, simultaneously! Take and use what makes sense to you rather than arguing over what is the "right" way to view these supernatural beings.

Personally, I love the idea that demons of chaos are created in all sorts of ways incongruent and inconsistent with each other. It's weird, breaks all the "rules" and is a perfect fit for creatures of chaos. I love the idea of scholars (in universe) arguing over whether demons should be classified as "species" or "types" . . . but the arguments get tired on the forums between gamers.

The thing is, you're skipping a step here. Elves and humans are different species. I think we can largely agree on that. But, "elf" and "human" isn't equivalent to "demon". Demons are equivalent to humanoid. They are a purely game term that has no actual meaning outside of the game. "Demon" isn't a species. Nor is "fiend". It's no more a species than "humanoid" or "beast".

SOME types of demons can reproduce biologically. That doesn't mean that demons reproduce biologically. The only one that I can think of that's been brought up in the thread are Armanites. Nothing else comes to mind (although, I'm sure I'll be corrected if I'm mistaken). So, the species of "Armanite" can reproduce biologically. But demon? Demon isn't a species.

And, note, the argument isn't so much about whether or not demons can reproduce biologically. The chain of logic is - armanites can reproduce biologically, thus, they have gender. Armanites are demons. Therefore, all demons MUST have a gender and because mariliths have always been drawn as having female torso's, it's impossible for mariliths to not be female, thus, this image represents a major change in canon and is therefore wrong.

 

[Kobold Avenger]

Chasme described as having orgies and mating in Pazrael/Pazuzu's realm and laying their eggs in corpses.

There's breeding of Goristo, much like how Humans breed horses.

There's a Nabassu described as a Nurse mother, who sends her children to prey on mortals. Nabassu can only mature by consuming mortal victims.

Armanites were described as having gender segregated herds/hordes, that only tend to mix and produce more Armanites after victories in battle. Their entry explicitly says there's male and female Armanites. 4e might have said they were Centaurs at one point.

Bulezau are rumored to be bred from Minotaurs and Demons. They do resemble Goat-Minotaurs after all, so they're likely an offshoot of Minotaurs and are mostly associated with Baphomet.

 

[Hussar]

As I said, I would be corrected.

But, my point does still stand. Yes, it's legitimate to say some demons breed somehow. But, that's not to say that all demons do. After all, it does flat out say that some demons are directly spawned by the abyss. And, let's be honest, we're digging DEEP into some very old canon to find some of these examples.

For example, you mention a Nabassu described as nurse mother, but, according to wiki, "Nabassus were born spontaneously in the Abyss from sinful souls filled with ravenous gluttony<a href="Nabassu">[9]</a> or as the result of a mane that ascended."

IOW, it's complicated, and often contradictory. Which, honestly, brings it back to the original issue of the thread - depicting a marilith without obvious female features. Considering so much of the canon is conflicting, obscure and often flat out contradictory, it's not really a stretch to think that demons can be drawn a number of ways.

 

[Bae'zel]

Nevermind, breaking my own rule.

 

[Hussar]

Countless pages arguing about breeding with demons has totally vindicated an earlier post of mine:

"people objecting to this because the Marilith is no longer sexy?"

To be fair, I don't really understand the angst here. We're just talking. Some interesting ideas have come out of this and I, for one, have learned quite a bit of D&D lore that I didn't know before. Now, I believe that we've pretty much stuck a fork in the notion that this image is somehow breaking canon. It's not. Not even a little. It's simply showing something that's always been possible under the canon of the game, but, just hasn't been illustrated before.

To me, that's just a win. We're getting something new and orginal that has always been possible in the game, but has never been shown. I've been told over and over again that additive canon is always acceptable. Well, this is adding to the canon and not contradicting anything. Win win.

 

[Kobold Avenger]

What Demons can and can't breed is on a case-by-case basis for their types.

Dretches and Manes being at the bottom of the ranks come from petitioners, so they probably can't as they likely lack a lot of identity to even have sexes or genders.

Rutterkin might, as they might have been corrupted Humans.

Barlgura as giant Orangutan like creatures probably could breed.

Alkiliths are intelligent and malevolent oozes that are associated with Jubilex, if they reproduce it's probably by splitting into two like oozes do.

High rank Demons like Glabrezu, Nalfeshnee, Mariliths and Balors mostly could breed, but aren't likely going to breed with those of their own kind as first of all they're quite rare on their own, and they'll have a child that's likely going to become a rival or enemy.

They might breed with lower ranked Demons as the spawn produced by that will be something between the ranks of the parents, and probably some emaciated almost skeletal thing that becomes a Babau. More likely they'll mate with a mortal and have a Cambion as a child.

The different varieties of Obyriths specifically don't come from reborn souls like the Tanar'ri (which most Demons are) do, they're Eldritch Evils from a time before there was mortals. They're dying out, and if there's new Obyriths produced it's probably a really rare once in a millennia event that's very mysterious in how it happened.