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.

 

[teitan]

I dont think WK can just do whatever they want with other peoples stuff. My thread about the minis being later than the books has several people mention there is a whole approval process before WK prints minis

Yes I mentioned WOTC had to sign off on it in a different post.

 

[teitan]

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

Reaper had a WOTC license???

 

[Uni-the-Unicorn!]

Lucky we have other posters here to tell us "what it is all about" in a condescending manner, hey?

Like yourself? You made claims as to what I was talking about and then when I say your are wrong about what I wrote you insult me?! Really, that is the discourse here?

My comment was just letting you know you're misrepresenting my statement or, at the very least, the intent of my statement. If you honestly wish to discuss instead of throw insults, let me know.

 

[Mirrorrorrim]

Lucky we have other posters here to tell us "what it is all about" in a condescending manner, hey?


I mean, let's be honest with ourselves. It is a painting of a man. Elmore knew he was painting a man, it clearly looks like a man's body. It was never anything but.

But now they've decided "it was a woman after all, aren't your EXPECTATIONS SUBVERTED? Don't you feel REPRESENTED?""

It's textbook pandering from a corporation that is still hoping you have forgotten all its recent hijinx.

From Elmore's perspective, he painted a man. That is true. So? Is Elmore pissed and offended about the variant, or just surprised?

The article says "WizKids also points out that their depiction of the Red Box Warrior is "purposefully and clearly" presented as a woman." Not that the character always has been.

Wizards took a cool piece of art that they owned, of an unnamed character without a face or a background, and had WizKids create a miniature out of it, (that Wizards must have approved of during the process if they didn't give art direction themselves). And when during that process if they wanted to give more detail to that faceless character, in ways that broadened diversity, then more power to them. I LOVE when Str 18+ characters actually have mighty thews, which is rarely depicted in women.

Are people complaining about just any art that has changed over the decades? Both art and characters evolve through the generations. Dragons, drow, even named characters, have changed. Regdar appears to have had several ethnicities depicted in art. Why is this variant so upsetting? Is it because... no... it can't be that simple...

 

[JEB]

they're hyping this set up as faithful 3D representations of those original pieces of artwork almost entirely across the board, with the "modern" versions of those NPCs / monsters being the "reinterpretations" or "derivative" works, except in the case of this miniature...

Actually, that raises an interesting question - do we know if there's also a "modern" version? If so, how will it differ? Or is this perhaps the "modern" version and there will be a "classic" version?

 

[ezo]

Has anyone seen an image of this mini where we can actually see the face?

I mean, the one in the OP is hidden fairly by hand/sword. It could be a woman, I suppose, or a guy with "manboobs"?

 

[Mistwell]

Yes I mentioned WOTC had to sign off on it in a different post.

We think. There is zero insider information on that question. If they view it like I do, they didn't care and gave blanket sign-off provided nothing is nude. I can absolutely see them saying, "You've always done good by us we trust you to make something cool" and that was all the sign-off they felt they needed.

 

[kenmarable]

But if the artist and everyone who saw it, understood it was a man, the point is, there wasn't this longstanding mystery around the sex of the figure

Kind of funny how "me and the people I personally know" tends to equal "everyone" in these sorts of discussions. Read through this thread. There are more than one counterexample to your "everyone."

We all live in bubbles and one thing that is true of everyone... is that we all have no idea what the opinions are of "everyone." None of us do. So pretty much every statement that is some version of "Everyone thinks that..." is guaranteed to be wrong.

 

[MNblockhead]

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

Internet forums are all-you-can-eat buffets. If you keep eating meatballs, they'll keep serving your meatballs.

Can y'all take this side debate to a new thread?

 

[MNblockhead]

I confess I am cynical enough to wonder if generating controversy was part of the intent, here.

Just plain old sense of realism if you ask me.