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.

 

[Bedrockgames]

With respect - it was always taken to be a man, because we (including the artist) had stereotypes we applied to interpreting what we were looking at.

I don't know. If the artist intended it to be a man, and drew it according to his understanding of the male body, and we correctly all interpreted to be a man, I would say it wasn't a product of anyone stereotyping. Which isn't to say, you couldn't have a male figure or female figure who falls into different parameters. But we all understood what the artist was aiming for. So the silly bit in my mind is them acting like there was some kind of mystery around it when there wasn't. I don't mind them changing it though if they want to. but I do think it is unfair to Elmore the artist, who probably took some pride in getting the anatomy of his figures right, and it does seem he took umbrage.

 

[Bedrockgames]

It's not a man or a woman. It's a bit of art that was used in a commercial product. It's a player's character at best. For Larry, it can be a man, and for everyone else, it's whoever they want it to be.

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

 

[Lakesidefantasy]

This really does feel like an unnecessary slap in the face.

 

[Ome]

Only one person asked for a clarification and identified themselves as a non-primary English speaker. The rest were attacks, and none asked for a clarification. The rest has been arguing about grammar.

I think your post should have been policed as rigorously as I have seen other posts policed.

 

[Nakana]

Count me as a vote in the "No, not really" column.

It was your posts that really got me thinking about it. Thank you.

 

[Uni-the-Unicorn!]

Because he insists he knows what he painted? How dare the guy.

Nope, not the reason at all.

 

[rgard]

I like the mini, but I'll never buy blind boxes of minis hoping to get it. I'm way past my plasticrack addiction. If the mini had been in a box where you could see what you get, I'd probably buy it. I'll see what it goes for on ebay and maybe then I'll get it along with a few other in that set.

Yes as others have commented, there's no way the mini's paint job will look like the image provided. The '&' symbol will probably be a blob of paint if it is attempted.

Sure, Elmore did he original art, but he sold it to TSR. That said, it would have been good form to run the change/idea past him to get his take/buy in, but good form is in short supply everywhere and I have no expectation of WotC or Wizkids having any.

I'm imagining Gina Carano taking a swing at a dragon.

 

[Nakana]

This is easy.
Would women like to be represented in a fantasy (or any) genre of TTRPG in its art, characters, stories that they most certainly play, develop, create & write for?

I think the consensus is Yes.
Unless you want to do an exhaustive poll of 5000 women who play ttrpg and see the results?

That’s not what I’m asking so this is a straw man fallacy. We are not discussing “all or nothing” representation throughout the industry.

We are discussing this particular instance.

As for the mini itself I don’t care what it is, I wouldn’t buy it either way.

As for the issue of representation of women, let’s ask the women.

 

[Uni-the-Unicorn!]

So are you saying that he has no say in his artistic intent and expression? To an extent there is interpretation but also understanding the intent behind a piece of art is actually extremely important to the interpretation. He is allowed to express that intent and disagree with a major change to his artistic work, whether you think it is sexist is essentially meaningless because it is erasure of his legacy, his self expression, even if it is a commercial piece under an art director. To suddenly tell him his art, that he owns a piece of the rights to, is something wholly different is, and I am not directing this at you, is not what he intended is arrogance. We need to respect the artist even if we develop our own ideas behind an image.

One thing I think is forgotten here is that the warrior on the cover has been depicted from the front and not just from behind. I will note I think the mini looks amazing.

That is not what it is about at all.

 

[GreyLord]

In other news, the Louvre (who may or may not have the rights to state it) have stated that the Mona Lisa by DaVinci is a Man.

This new revelation seems to have startled a LOT of Art Historians and others who were always extremely sexist in thinking that the painting had to be of a woman.

As stated by Louis DePascal, head archivist for the Paintings as well as storage and restorations

I mean, you should catch up on the modern times, DaVinci was ahead of the times and was painting one of the first individuals that could be either a man or a woman. Just look at it, you can totally see it's a man! Our stereotypes for the past several hundred years just made it so that we labelled the gender of the paintings subject in a wrong manner.

(translated roughly from the French...)

I mean, we aren't positive what DaVinci's original intentions were from many centuries ago...and even if he said something outright...does that really mean it holds up under modern interpretations?