D&D General D&D Red Box: Who Is The Warrior?

The Dungeons & Dragons Red Box, famously illustrated by Larry Elmore in 1983, featured cover art of a warrior fighting a red dragon. The piece is an iconic part of D&D's history.

WizKids is creating a 50th Anniversary D&D miniatures set for the D&D Icons of the Realms line which includes models based on classic art from the game, such as the AD&D Player's Handbook's famous 'A Paladin In Hell' piece by David Sutherland in 1978, along with various monsters and other iconic images. The set will be available in July 2024.

Amongst the collection is Elmore's dragon-fighting warrior. This character has only ever been seen from behind, and has never been named or identified. However, WizKids’ miniature gives us our first look at them from the front. The warrior is a woman; the view from behind is identical to the original art, while the view from the front--the first time the character's face has ever been seen--is, as WizKids told ComicBook.com, "purposefully and clearly" a woman. This will be one of 10 secret rare miniatures included in the D&D Icons of the Realms: 50th Anniversary booster boxes.

The original artist, Larry Elmore, says otherwise. (Update—the linked post has since been edited).

It's a man!

Gary didn't know what he wanted, all he wanted was something simple that would jump out at you. He wanted a male warrior. If it was a woman, you would know it for I'm pretty famous for painting women.

There was never a question in all these years about the male warrior.

No one thought it was a female warrior. "Whoever thought it was a female warrior is quite crazy and do not know what they are talking about."

This is stupid. I painted it, I should know.

- Larry Elmore​

Whether or not Elmore's intent was for the character to be a man, it seems that officially she's a woman. Either way, it's an awesome miniature. And for those who love the art, you can buy a print from Larry Elmore's official website.

 

[Queer Venger]

I understand perfectly how art interpretation works. But if you're hyping up how you are making 3-D versions of iconic paintings, that's the time to stick to the original intention.

In other words, it's not that nobody can ever make free interpretations of other people's art without consulting them--it's that this specific situation was not an appropriate time to do so.


It's not like there is a shortage of available female minis, even female warrior minis. I've painted quite a lot of them myself.

I just don't see this as a representation issue, period.

I do. Period.

And I don't think this is hype.
Art is interpretive, not iconic. This is not a religious Icon.

 

[Meech17]

Is Elmore remembering correctly? Are we sure the Red Box hero isn't Telerie Windyarm from Snarfquest?

 

[jayoungr]

I do. Period.

Then we disagree. But forgive me if I feel like I should have a little more say in whether I feel "represented" or not. I never felt un-represented before, so this new mini does nothing for me.

And I don't think this is hype.

Call it marketing, then.

Art is interpretive, not iconic. This is not a religious Icon.

Didn't say it was. I just think that if you're going to market yourself as producing a mini that represents Larry Elmore's painting, and Larry Elmore is still around and can be asked about it, you should go with Larry Elmore's vision. (And just to be clear, when I say "you," I don't mean you personally. I mean WizKids.)

 

[Warpiglet-7]

You know what else subverted expectations and went over like a lead balloon for half the fans? Go on guess.

Greedo shooting first?

 

[Feeroper]

I think this situation is a real shame. WK & WotC had an opportunity to do a mini out of one of the many iconic female characters from throughout D&D's history. By purposely choosing to take this action, and clearly look to incite a large portion of the fanbase (yes there will be some who take their outrage too far, but being unhappy about this is not an inappropriate action), simply to get that attention is truly disingenuous. It makes me less likely to trust other actions these companies might take (nevermind the OGL crisis last year from WotC).

At the end of the day, one can simply choose not to purchase from this set, or support said companies with little to no impact to yourself. I am more upset that this action from WK/WotC screams to be more community destructive as opposed to community building, and this hobby thrives on a vibrant community. I will go back to my initial point - WK & WotC had an opportunity to do a mini out of one of the many iconic female characters from throughout D&D's history, which I believe would have been celebrated and loved by the majority of the fans. Alas, a missed opportunity to cash in on the current day social media feeding frenzy. It is what it is.

Well, looking on the brighter side, I hope you all have great gaming to look forward to! At the end of the day, D&D the brand is owned by WotC/Hasbro, but D&D the game is what YOU make of it! Good gaming all!

 

[TheGlen]

Wizkids changed it deliberately. WOtC did not.

Speaking from personal experience as somebody who's worked at a miniatures company the company that has commissioned the piece has an awful lot of power on how it looks. I worked at reaper and we would get calls all the time to change aspects of the different models we were making from the people that were paying for it. I don't know if this is the case but that was how it worked at least when somebody else was paying to have the stuff made

 

[Mannahnin]

Speaking from personal experience as somebody who's worked at a miniatures company the company that has commissioned the piece has an awful lot of power on how it looks. I worked at reaper and we would get calls all the time to change aspects of the different models we were making from the people that were paying for it. I don't know if this is the case but that was how it worked at least when somebody else was paying to have the stuff made

Sure, but did WotC commission it, or just license it?

 

[Queer Venger]

Then we disagree. But forgive me if I feel like I should have a little more say in whether I feel "represented" or not. I never felt un-represented before, so this new mini does nothing for me.


Call it marketing, then.


Didn't say it was. I just think that if you're going to market yourself as producing a mini that represents Larry Elmore's painting, and Larry Elmore is still around and can be asked about it, you should go with Larry Elmore's vision. (And just to be clear, when I say "you," I don't mean you personally. I mean WizKids.)

No worries, it's okay to disagree. This is part of a discourse.
Maybe yes, marketing; marketing to make inclusivity more in the forefront.
To make players who look like the art feel more included, represented.

WotC owns this art, they, like company (and I don't always agree) can do what they want with it.

 

[Umbran]

Everyone that thinks that this is “ruins the original art” is a 100% a bigot.

Mod note:
I asked folks to keep the rhetoric down.

You have abjectly failed to do so.

That will not go well for you. Please keep to threads in which you can hold back from fanning flames.

 

[jayoungr]

To make players who look like the art feel more included, represented.

Like I said, there are already plenty of female warrior minis. And they can make as many more as they can sell. There is no reason it has to be THIS one. It doesn't even have to be this one within the 50th anniversary line--as others have pointed out, there are plenty of female characters within the D&D lineup who could have been used.