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

A WizKids miniature reveals the iconic character's face for the first time.

Screenshot 2024-05-07 at 22.27.52.png


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.

Screenshot 2024-05-07 at 22.31.00.png

paladininhell.jpg

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.


redboxwarriormini.png




s-l1600.jpg

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.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

MNblockhead

A Title Much Cooler Than Anything on the Old Site
I much prefer this silly argument than some of the other silly arguments.
Naw, I much prefer my thousand-post threads on anachronistic fashion, depictions of spell effects not supporting RAW, and wizards not looking wizened, all taking place in my inconsequential little pocket of geekery. This will end up in wider cultural war drama flooding in and the inevitable thread cap.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Akodoken

Explorer
Artistic intent matters to the original art. That said, WOTC (and WizKids working for them) can create derivative works based on the original art because they own the original. That's all this mini is, a derivative work that changed aspects of the art it is based upon. It doesn't change the original piece of art or affect the artist's intent.

I'm not convinced anyone needed to say anything to Elmore. Derivative works are created all the time. Disney doesn't consult with Ub Iwerks when they create a new or derivative version of Mickey Mouse. Granted, he passed away a long time ago but even if he were alive, he wouldn't be consulted. They own the mouse, they can create other versions of the mouse as they please.

However, it would have been nice if WizKids had created both a male and female version of the mini. I'd happily buy both.
 

Michael Linke

Adventurer
There’s not enough depicted of the warrior in the original art so affirmatively say it’s gender, but I now can’t un-see her. All we get is a bare, toned leg, a shoulder and some long black hair. Last I checked women are slightly more likely to have all three of those things.
 

Nilbog

Snotling Herder
I'm sure if they released an action figure of the Mona Lisa that was male no would care right?

I like the figure, but I won't buy it as it'll likely be out of my price range, but I do find it a tad disrespectful, either wizz-kids/wotc contacted Larry about it and ignored him, or never spoke to him at all, either way I don't think that's showing a deal of respect.

Like others have said, would have been awesome to do make and female versions, but I guess the free publicity was too good to ignore.
 

michaeljpastor

Adventurer
View attachment 361826

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.

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.
I hope every incel in the RPG world just had a coronary.
 

Nathaniel Lee

Adventurer
I think that it's fine for WotC, WizKids, etc. to create derivative works based on Elmore's original art, at a broad level. The problem I see here is that they're hyping up the 50th anniversary of the game, and specifically promoting how this particular series of miniatures is honoring the original versions of all these classic creatures, classes, etc. With all of the spotlights on that, I'd expect that miniatures of original artwork would be aligned with that original artwork, and in this case the intent of not just the artist but the person who commissioned the art.

There are already "modern interpretations" of the originals in this set by way of the "modern" minis. I think an approach such as taking a male NPC from original art, let's say a warrior or something like that, and then having the "modern" counterpart be a female would feel more organic. But that's just me.
 

Whizbang Dustyboots

Gnometown Hero
I have done work for hire my entire professional life.

People who have done the same and act shocked -- shocked -- that something they produced under those conditions is being used in a way that they wouldn't prefer are at least play acting, IMO. After your first half-dozen times that happens to you, you grow a big callus and stop kidding yourself about who owns the work product or how much say you have over it.

Of course, they know that most people don't know what it's like to produce work for hire and are happy to wind up the crowd with their behavior, but I don't think you should ever take them completely seriously.
 


Mistwell

Crusty Old Meatwad (he/him)
I hope every incel in the RPG world just had a coronary.
There is no good reason to call people names (incel) or wish death/disability on them (coronary) simply because they disagree with you about what the gender of an action figure based on an old painting should be. Come on man, you gotta do better than that, that's not appropriate.
 

Tonguez

A suffusion of yellow
You have to be kidding? Warned that, what, the back of a warrior that he painted and sold inspired a new piece of art that was interpreted as a [GASP] woman?

Should they have warned him if it was being done as a man? Or non-binary? Or a half-elf? Or a non-binary half-elf? What, exactly, entitles him to anything other than the money he made when he sold the art? Apologize. Absurd.

So what's your opinion of AI art?
This is the same thing really, it's copying an existing work (the back pose figure) and reconfiguring it to a new form.

The original artist should still be acknowledged even if his original art was sold
 

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top