Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="npick03" data-source="post: 9603420" data-attributes="member: 6667384">Not for me, no. My taste in cheescake runs in a very different direction (ie dudes).But the lack of sexiness is curious to me. Because there doesn't appear to be any reason for it, or for any of the changes.She isn't sexy, but there are other sexy monsters in the book. If they didn't want to make a mono-female monster, why not give her male counterpart like the medusa, dryad, hag, etc? If her looking like Kali was an issue, why are the rakshasa and naga, directly lifted from Hinduism, still in the book? With the guardian naga's art making direct allusions to Southeast Asian culture?I neither want nor need snake demon boobs. I just want the warrior snake demon to slay. If the MM had male and female presenting mariliths that would be great! I would prefer that to what we got. The "all mariliths look like this now" comes from the fact that is the Monster Manual. This is the tone setting, ground zero text for monsters in 2024 5e. I think its reasonable to assume that this is what Wizards wants mariliths to look like. It would be strange to not be consistent with one of the three core rulebooks. For better or worse, these are the mariliths we have.It's bad for me (and bad is bit too strong a word for it) because this design doesn't impress me. Old mariliths were more interesting to me, and this doesn't improve on what we had. It's a new direction that I don't care for. It doesn't read to me as a marilith or even that much of a snake demon. Honestly I think even just giving her real weapons and smooth scales would have helped a lot.I think this discussion is hitting on something deeper than just the marilith. Like, what is the purpose of the Monster Manual? What is the role of art, lore, and legacy in Dungeons & Dragons? Could, and probably should, be its own thread.</blockquote>

Verification