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.

 

[Faith Elisabeth Lilley]

Even if it was accidental on Elmore's part, featuring a warrior whose gender wasn't obvious, decades before "gender neutral" and "non-binary" entered the public consciousness, had a positive impact on the reception of the box set.

I looked at that art when young, and I could imagine myself as the warrior.

I know from talking with others over the years that I am not the only person who felt like this - it was representation, in an era where Arnold Schwarzenegger's Conan was the pop culture reference for a warrior.

Things can be multiple things.

Larry says there was never a question about the male warrior and that no one thought the warrior was female. That's cool, it's his opinion, but he's factually incorrect - some people did think the warrior was female. Some may have thought the warrior was non-binary too.

That's one of the beautiful things about art - it takes on a life and meaning of its own through the interpretation of viewers.

I don't feel that the miniature changes anything about the original art - it's a new piece of art, inspired by the original piece. It's the vision of the sculptor.

Maybe she was assigned male by the artist, but she's a woman to some of us.

 

[DarkCrisis]

I think the main point here is, the mini is supposed to represent an iconic character from 50 years ago for a special occasion and WotC deliberately changed it for reasons.

Which probably wouldn’t be as bad if you could get the actual iconic figure along side the reimagined one but you can’t.

The one chance to get this character and they altered it first. Just a weird thing to do. And as mentioned the & symbol is kind of an odd choice on her chest.

 

[Andvari]

Easily one of my favorite art pieces ever. I'm fine with the miniature inspired by it is a woman, even though the original piece depicts a man.

 

[michaeljpastor]

As an outside observer to that little tangent, I think you should have just owned your comment and ignored the obvious bait.

No argument there. I have never responded well to false accusations though.

 

[Meech17]

When I saw the article about the mini yesterday my first thought was

"Oh boy.. Some people are gonna be reeeeeeeeeal mad about this." I don't know.. I just don't get why it matters so much.

Huh. Interesting.

I always thought it was the same Warrior on all of the boxed sets:

View attachment 361839

View attachment 361836

View attachment 361837

View attachment 361838

The boxed sets take you from Level 1 all the way to Level 36, so I figured that was what the artist was trying to illustrate on the covers: the Warrior's gear gets better, the dragons get larger, and the background gets broader and more fantastic as the levels of the game increase.

I guess that's why I've always assumed it was a male warrior, because on the cover of the final boxed set we can see the warrior's "final form," a king riding a gold dragon. That was my own interpretation, anyway.

I'm not wounded by someone else interpreting the artwork differently, though. Women are warriors too.

I like this take.. I never knew about this, but I totally buy it.

 

[TheGlen]

This whole debate will become moot once Wizkids releases the mini far less detailed than the render.

Spoiler: Render

View attachment 361887

Spoiler: Final Mini

View attachment 361889
[\SPOILER]

Harsh.

True

But harsh

 

[Mistwell]

So is over interpreting an obvious metaphor as a literal wish.

Naw man you called people dissenting from your view (about a silly topic) incels. You were not just speaking in metaphor you used intentionally bombastic language to get a reaction and are now acting the wounded victim that you got the reaction you were going for.

 

[Mistwell]

"Don't have a coronary" means calm down, it doesn't mean "Don't die."

All of which is completely irrelevant. I hope every bigoted sexist in the RPG world is furious right now. That was what I intended. You all can argue parts of speech all you want. It wasn't literal - pick your favorite vocabulary word.

Whatever it was, it was classic Internet over the top attention seeking "My tribe is better than your tribe" stuff over a silly topic. And I agree with your general view on this topic, but take it down a notch Francis. Not liking this change does not make one an incel, or bigoted or sexist - people can not like an artistic change without being those things. People react negatively to artistic interpretation or reinterpretation all the time without being bad people. It was after all a change done to be intentionally controversial, itself for marketing purposes. You can almost hear the chuckles and "wait til they see this one!" conversation that took place over this at WizKids. Ultimately this was I think supposed to be fun.

 

[michaeljpastor]

Naw man you called people dissenting from your view (about a silly topic) incels. You were not just speaking in metaphor you used intentionally bombastic language to get a reaction and are now acting the wounded victim that you got the reaction you were going for.

No I wasn't. Please stop telling me what I meant.

 

[TheGlen]

We know the original art was a man because Elmore had a very distinctive style in which he drew women. And that is not one of his women. Aleena, Goldmoon, Illyana Penhaligon (the Aleena's sister art), Laurana and the rest all had the same body. And often the face. Fantasy artists still joke about the Elmore chin.

Issue isn't the mini it's the marketing. It's the 50th anniversary. All the other miniatures are faithful recreations. Except the efreet because you can't have a damsel in distress anymore. This particular piece of art is targeted towards the grogs the ones that bought the basic set all those years ago. If you change what they are expecting they're not going to want to buy it. It doesn't hold the same attachment for people who got into the game later they've got their own art that inspired them. Whoever made the change made the change because they wanted it not because the customers did.

And worse there are dozens of iconic D&D females that you could have used. Morgan Ironwolf. Alias of the Azure Bonds. Lidda. Imoen. Glasya. I pay good money for a Morgan figure. We are consumers give us the stuff that we want to consume. You'll make a lot more money that way