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.

 

[Clint_L]

Uh, sir, the dragon definitely represents the corrupt and decadent USSR while the warrior represents freedom liberating the hoard so that it can be used more efficiently in the free market.

Fair. It is a RED dragon, after all.

 

[Bedrockgames]

But why is whether they are (or think they are) getting the creature from the book all that central?

Why do we care about that, as opposed to caring about what each version means to the audience, and whether, perhaps, the mute creature actually carries some of the original themes better than the original text does?

It is central to the book. I have no issue with the monster in the movies.
I also have no problem with the meaning being changed in the movies. Each movie is a new work in my opinion. But when engaging the book by Shelley or the movies by James Whale, I would give primacy to the intent and meaning of the creators rather than my own. Which isn't to say a lot of new meaning can't be found. I just don't agree with the idea that my interpretation is of equal value or weight to the author's, or that the author's is merely one view among many.

Whether the mute creature carries the themes of the original better, that is a matter of opinion. But what isn't is that the original creature wasn't mute (at least not by the time he learns to speak) and when he does learn to speak, is far more eloquent than Karloff's "We belong dead". Now I would not change Karloff's final line in Bride of Frankenstein for anything. It is perfect. My point is just there is a difference between the Karloff incarnation and the creature in the book.

To use another example: Starship Troopers. I like both the book and the movie. My experience is most people like one or the other. But I think Verhoeven was making a new work when he made the film, and that work was in many ways a commentary on the both. I take no issue with someone liking the movie better. But the movie is not the meaning of the book. It would be mistaken to suggest that the new meaning Verhoeven created with the new film, changes the meaning of the original.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Well, before discarding use of the guitar example, for lack expertise of guitar experience, I considered:

There's lots of things that go into guitar playing, many of which are physical - the hands of the player matter. The pickups (or lack thereof) matter. The audio equipment you put your output through matters. And EVH is known, even to me, as a player of inventive, idiosyncratic technique - so copying him isn't something a lot of folks can pull off.

So, elements of "why was it done that way originally" can rely on things that are not applicable to a current player - if you aren't EVH paying on 1983 tech, maybe much of it isn't something that'll matter to you. Looking to a good, but still more workaday, player who worked a version of that solo over and over and over as a routine matter might be more valuable for many players at home, as the techniques used might be more achievable or understandable.

This probably takes us far afield. But I think maybe part of what @Dannyalcatraz was getting at is the more and more you do this, the further away from the original work you get. Someone may have made a new version that exceeds the quality of the original. But over time, as more and more people imitate that, I think it is wise to go back to the original and find its spirit (I think this is something that has clearly happened with Hallelujah, where the Buckley version or even the Rufus Wainwright version is arguably better----Cohen's original is actually rather rough sounding). But we are now at the point where everything is a copy of the copy of the copy and it is just a parody of the original now (in the way that imitations of Whale's version of the Frankenstein's creature are just green ornaments more than anything terrifying).

On technique, I think there is always value in going back to the original and seeking the original creator's intentions and style. There are a few famous riffs and solos that people regularly get wrong, because people with great technique have done their own versions and these get passed down. Smoke on the Water is a famous example, though Ritchie Blackmore is a notorious fibber so you actually need to go back to the footage with a guy like him and try to figure out exactly how he plays that riff. An example I can think of in my own playing is I somehow learned a version of Children of the Damned that goes Em G Am C D rather than Em G D C D (going by memory here so apologies if I mixed any of this up). Somehow someone along the line heard the D as an Am. And I never noticed even after playing it for years (though I understand something was missing). It took sitting down and paying attention to the original chords to realize the error I had learned. And I don't know, maybe it is somehow possible, do to other notes being played in the background, to hear Am there. I am unsure what led to the original error. And I do sometimes enjoy that E G Am C D chord progression. But it wasn't the original intent. And I am not saying my rendering is definitive, I could easily be wrong about one of these chords (especially as my hearing isn't what it used to be). But reasons like this are why, while you can often learn a lot from players on youtube or newer players who have more clear versions of songs, its good to go back to the original and make sure something is not getting lost. Also in many ways, guitar playing is better than it has ever been. We live in an age of virtuosity guitar. There are peopel on youtube with better technique than many of the greats I grew up listening to. But it isn't technique alone that made those players great. So even if someone comes along and exceeds them, there is value in going back

 

[Clint_L]

Fair. It is a RED dragon, after all.

Wait, okay, maybe it's really a startling allegory about desperation and addiction, and the warrior is forever chasing the dragon.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Wait, okay, maybe it's really a startling allegory about desperation and addiction, and the warrior is forever chasing the dragon.

 

[Gradine]

Wait, okay, maybe it's really a startling allegory about desperation and addiction, and the warrior is forever chasing the dragon.

The dragon doesn't seem to be fleeing, tbh

 

[Clint_L]

No, it's about to finally consume him. It's a tragedy.

 

[Hussar]

The idea that there is a “true meaning” to a work of art is a very, very bad idea for just so many reasons.

 

[Bedrockgames]

The idea that there is a “true meaning” to a work of art is a very, very bad idea for just so many reasons.

I think saying there is only one way to view a work of art is bad. I don't think rejecting death of the author is bad. Look, I think we have all gone in circles on this one and have all stated why we think original intent can matter or can't. But do we have to draw a hard line in the sand around something like this? Some people are going to encounter an idea like death of the author and not agree with it. That doesn't really mean anything except they view the intent of a work as being particularly significant. It isn't an outrageous notion.

 

[Hussar]

I think saying there is only one way to view a work of art is bad. I don't think rejecting death of the author is bad. Look, I think we have all gone in circles on this one and have all stated why we think original intent can matter or can't. But do we have to draw a hard line in the sand around something like this? Some people are going to encounter an idea like death of the author and not agree with it. That doesn't really mean anything except they view the intent of a work as being particularly significant. It isn't an outrageous notion.

The idea that there is a "true" meaning of an artwork is something that has been rejected by art criticism for the better part of a century now. So, yeah, it's pretty outrageous. By claiming that there is a "true" interpretation of a work, and even further that this "true" interpretation is the one put forth by the author leads to some really, really uncomfortable places.

J. K. Rowling can claim that Dumbledore is gay until her head falls off. It's not actually supported in the text. There's nothing in the text that even suggests Dumbledore's sexuality. At least, not in the original novels. So, no, it's not a "true" interpretation. Just as an easy example.

Authors can be wrong. Authors can lie. Authors can change their minds. Just like anyone can. Which means that the author's intent can never be proven. Which means it's a belief, not an idea. And like any belief in something that is "true" that belief can and will be used to bludgeon other people over the head for being wrong.

All one has to do is start reading this thread from the first page to see EXACTLY that. All the claims that Elmore is being insulted, repeated quotes of Elmore's reaction being used as "proof" that Wizkids and WotC are "wrong". On and on.

So, yes. We do have to draw a hard line here. This isn't one of those, "well, let's agree to disagree" things. The notion of the primacy of the author has been rejected for a very long time. I frankly cannot even begin to understand how this is a debate. This was resolved decades ago. I have no idea why some people are still clinging to this notion of the primacy of creator after it being so thoroughly debunked.