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.

 

[dbolack]

I wouldn't agree the piece looks ambiguous, especially for the time and the artist. But I would agree that not everyone would draw the same conclusion. I just think it is a little silly to assert there was large scale confusion over it

The only argument of confusion is from the slightly click-bait articles and the people who absolutely insist that there was no way interpret the figure as not male and therefore there can't be confusion.

 

[Henadic Theologian]

aaaaaand I'm done.

Me as well.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Who is asserting such a thing?

The ComicBooks article headline was "Wizkids Answers Dungeons and Dragons Mystery in 50th Anniversary Set" and the article went on to say

As you can see in the renders above, WizKids' Red Box Warrior matches the pose of the original artwork, right down to the raised sword and lunging pose. WizKids also points out that their depiction of the Red Box Warrior is "purposefully and clearly" presented as a woman, providing a bit of a surprise for some wondering about details about this iconic warrior from D&D's past.

This eventually prompted Larry Elmore to issue a statement on facebook clarifying the character had been a man

 

[Dire Bare]

The ComicBooks article headline was "Wizkids Answers Dungeons and Dragons Mystery in 50th Anniversary Set" and the article went on to say



This eventually prompted Larry Elmore to issue a statement on facebook clarifying the character had been a man

You haven't been reading the entire thread, have you.

So . . . a website known for click-bait titles uses a click-bait title and that's a large scale assertion that folks think the original artwork is a "mystery" or "ambiguous"? Nah.

We learned that the original art order from Gygax asked for (or implied) a male warrior fighting a dragon. And that's what Elmore painted, although purposefully from behind to give the warrior a degree of anonymity.

Most folks interpreted the figure in the painting as a male, but some did not, and saw the figure as female. No mystery, just different interpretations. Up until this week, not a huge topic of conversation in the RPG community.

WizKids, perhaps in coordination with WotC, decided to imagine this figure as a female warrior rather than male. ComicBooks.com writes a click-bait article about it, and ambushes Elmore with an out-of-context question, "Is the character in the artwork male or female?" Elmore's reply sounded very sexist, but he was responding to a question that was out-of-context.

Once Elmore was made aware WHY folks were asking him about his intent in the original piece, his apology was very open and tolerant to folks interpreting his art in any way they chose.

How many folks over the years felt the piece was ambiguous regarding the warrior's gender? Probably not many, although interpretations varied. Who is claiming that this was a grand mystery finally solved by WizKids? Um, ComicsBook.com and not really anybody else.

How many fans are outraged over this gender-swapped classic D&D character? Some are being very loud on the interwebs, but likely not very many really.

 

[Azzy]

The ComicBooks article headline was "Wizkids Answers Dungeons and Dragons Mystery in 50th Anniversary Set" and the article went on to say

So a clickbait article, not anyone here.

This eventually prompted Larry Elmore to issue a statement on facebook clarifying the character had been a man

Yeah, WizKids specifically chose to reinterpret the warrior as a woman (which they make clear in the article), Elmore stated that the intention of the original piece was that it depicted a man.

 

[Bedrockgames]

How many fans are outraged over this gender-swapped classic D&D character? Some are being very loud on the interwebs, but likely not very many really.

I am not outraged at all about swapping the gender. I just thought the article in question was silly, because people got that it was a guy at the time. That is all I have been saying the whole time I have been on the thread

 

[Dioltach]

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

View attachment 362150

Oh, man, I remember the outrage at the time. We might even be able to find some of it in the oldest posts on this site.

 

[Dioltach]

Oh, man, I remember the outrage at the time. We might even be able to find some of it in the oldest posts on this site.

I'm surprised no-one brought it up before now. Like you say, the outrage.

 

[Ralif Redhammer]

Oh, man, I remember the outrage at the time. We might even be able to find some of it in the oldest posts on this site.

Funny how distant and inconsequential it seems, twenty years in the rearview mirror.