• The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!

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

Except that's not true. Elmore specifically states there would have been zero ambiguity if he intended to draw a female figure. I'm inclined to believe him over you.
I'm sure that's what was intended. But what the artist intends is irrelevant. I can intend to paint a copy of the Mona Lisa*, but what I actually end up with looks like Nora Batty. If someone says I'll give you £100 for that painting of Nora Batty I'm not complaining.

In this case the result was actually greater than what the artist intended, in that he unintentionally painted a figure that the viewer could interpret as any gender.



*One of the theories about the Mona Lisa is that the rich man's wife who Leonardo was commissioned to paint wouldn't sit still for the extended period required, so having done the preliminary work Leonardo got his (male) assistant/lover to sit in for her (in a long wig). This is why Leonardo wouldn't part with the painting and took it with him when he went into exile in France, and kept it till the day he died. Leonardo also kept his painting of John the Baptist. If you look at the faces, they are the same person.
 
Last edited:

log in or register to remove this ad




Dannyalcatraz

Schmoderator
Staff member
Supporter
Re: authorial intent

IMHO, it absolutely matters, but it isn’t dispositive. It’s just the beginning of the conversation between a work’s creator and their audience.

In my case, I have definitely created written/musical/visual/physical IP within which others have found aspects that were not intended, but fair analysis strongly supported. Some had symbols I didn’t realize had multiple meanings.

A few years ago, I scrapped a musical composition that I had been working on for months when a new Joe Satriani single got released and the first several bars of my piece were eerily- but entirely coincidentally- similar. My intent was nearly irrelevant: if I had recorded and released it, it would probably have been dismissed as an amateurish copy. (And that kind of thing happens more than you think.)

I’ve seen this in more than creative human endeavors. In my first semester of law school, I took Criminal Law with a professor who had just spent months helping the legislature rewrite certain sections of Texas’ criminal law code. Halfway through the semester, he was discussing a particular statute with a foreign student (for whom English was not her primary language ), and quickly realized she had a completely different and almost opposite understanding of the law’s language.

Class screeched to a halt as he analyzed her understanding of the law. Despite literally pages of documentation on the legislative intent of the law’s drafting, he declared her understanding was a perfectly valid interpretation of the text. He then said as soon as the class was over, he had calls to make to the team he’d been working with in order to change the law yet again to eliminate her interpretation from ever getting used in court.
 





Jadeite

Hero
Ask and ye shall receive. (Video cued to the part in question.)

Disclaimer: I'm parking this here purely in the interests of providing a verbatim, in-context quote. Not weighing in on what he says at all, because I am not touching that subject with a ten-foot pole.

He must have been really disappointed last year when all those women lost their job at WotC and he had to stay.
 

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top