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.

 

[Umbran]

Folks, I recommend you all stop pushing your luck in this thread.

If you are not going to be kind, take a hike.

 

[AstroCat]

Is Elmore remembering correctly? Are we sure the Red Box hero isn't Telerie Windyarm from Snarfquest?View attachment 361971

Telerie Windyarm would make an awesome mini, much better in my opinion than this whole fiasco.

 

[GothmogIV]

.

 

[Dire Bare]

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

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).

Half the fans? A large portion of the fanbase is outraged?

Nah. SOME fans are LOUDLY upset over this, but I suspect they are in the minority.

WizKids and WotC are fine.

 

[Gradine]

Half the fans? A large portion of the fanbase is outraged?

Nah. SOME fans are LOUDLY upset over this, but I suspect they are in the minority.

Which actually makes the comparison apt.

 

[Willie the Duck]

So, once again, we have a tempest in a teapot.

First and foremost, I just don't see this as some major event in the first place, regardless of the appropriateness of the action. This is a series of plastic trinkets that didn't exist* a few days ago and, barring us or someone we know actually buying one of them, quickly will exit everyone's experience. It is an ephemeral money-making effort by the company that rather bluntly said a decade ago that they were hoping to make more money off D&D branded items than just the game books. It does not need to be treated as anything different from some licensed mobile game that features your favorite comic book hero (perhaps in an interpretation you might not enjoy).
*as a product, I'm aware they may still not physically exist at this exact moment.

Whether or not Elmore's intent was for the character to be a man, it seems that officially she's a woman.

The company that holds the IP gets to declare what is official, and we get to declare how much we care. This is true. However, even within that, I don't agree with this premise. Unless WotC declares such, I feel they've only really made this figurine based on the cover art to be female, with the original still in a superstate of uncertainty.

Side note - Darksword minis have some fantastic Elmore mini in their line up.

Side note - I would pay crazy money for a fantastic Elmore mini -- not of his art, of Elmore. They did one of H. R. Giger about a decade ago that I didn't buy that I still wish I had.

This whole "debate" is ridiculous. The bottom line is that the piece of artwork was Larry's creation. He said he drew a male warrior, so it is a male warrior. You are free to imagine that it is a woman, dog, cat, owlbear or whatever you like. But the fact is the warrior depicted is a male. Much like when a musician writes a song and tells you what the meaning of it is. That is what the song actually means. Sure, you can imagine that it means something else. But that does not change the fact of what the song really means. With that being said I have no problem with Wizkids reimagining something. But it is just that, a reimagining of the original. Not what the famous red box warrior actually was.

I'll just refer back to this:

Fun fact: the essay that gave us the phrase "death of the author" was published over 15 years before Elmore painted that box art.

And that's it. From my perspective, if the artist didn't say the thing in the song, or put the thing in the picture, it isn't there. It may be too many content-mill articles titled similar to 'you won't guess what <famous song> is really about*' have left me jaded, but there's no secret reality that you have to check with the author/creator to find out what something really means (particularly to your own experience of the thing). Larry can tell us twelve ways to sunrise what his intentions were, and perhaps they matter, but if the picture doesn't specifically depict one gender or another than it doesn't specifically depict one gender or another.
*it's always nuclear war or sex, or both.

How is it ruined? You can still enjoy the original art and interpret it in any way you want. Easy to ignore and not buy the miniature if you don't like it.

Exactly.

 

[TheGlen]

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

Wizards paid for it. This was back before the rise of plastic minis. And they had us yank a few because apparently they were too close to the art. And they thought the owl bear was goofy. Which in their defense it was. But the boss would come in have us pull some miniatures off the line and go get them remade

 

[Mannahnin]

Wizards paid for it. This was back before the rise of plastic minis. And they had us yank a few because apparently they were too close to the art. And they thought the owl bear was goofy. Which in their defense it was. But the boss would come in have us pull some miniatures off the line and go get them remade

No, I get that. I'm talking about the new one.

 

[TheGlen]

No, I get that. I'm talking about the new one.

That I couldn't tell you. It could be equal parts both. But if wizards didn't want this made in the way that it was made then they would drop the hammer. If that was their initial idea or they just went with it you'd have to ask them

 

[Umbran]

Telerie Windyarm would make an awesome mini, much better in my opinion than this whole fiasco.

Right. But she's pretty clearly a character visually designed for the male gaze. Sexualized. As are most of the other iconic female art pieces from yesteryear.

One thing you can say about the mini they produced is that she means business.