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.

 

[CapnZapp]

“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." - Larry Elmore, apparently.

I mean…calling someone who considered the warrior to be a woman “crazy” sure sounds like something to be disputed.

Taken with no context, it isn't crazy, of course.

But the second you realize it's an Elmore painting, you would immediately realize how unlikely it would have been for Elmore to pass up an opportunity for some cheesecake.

So we can give the artist the benefit of the doubt: "Whoever thought it I [Elmore] would have painted [a gender-neutral rear view of a a female warrior] is quite crazy and do not know what they are talking about."

Read this way his statement makes perfect sense and is not controversial in the slightest. Let's be wary of denouncing statements before we know the full intent and story, shall we?

 

[CapnZapp]

In this case the artist managed to be ambiguous by accident.

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.

And besides, have a look at a random sample of his art, and you will believe him too...

 

[CapnZapp]

I don’t think he intends to be sexist, but particularly that last quote of his comes off not the best.

He's one of the very best fantasy cheesecake artists. He has drawn hundreds of images many people will find sexist, especially today.

I don't think he's particularly worried about how he comes off to you... (I mean, if you want to be offended, I'm certain he's done artwork that's far easier to be offended by!)

 

[Jaeger]

Whatever Elmore intended to paint, there is no gender in the painting. None whatevsoever. It's not there. Show me it. You can't. Because it's not there. That painting shows no gender. ...

I completely reject this revisionist premise.

Because it is simply not true.

This is basically like trying to tell everyone that saw the painting over the past 40 years that their own two eyes lied to them.

But they didn't.

As Elmore stated; there was never any question that the Warrior was a Male.

He was spot on in his assessment:

"I recently was asked a question about the Ancient Red painting I did for the cover of the Red Box edition.
"Did you paint a male or female?"
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.

 

[Vaalingrade]

I don't think he's particularly worried about how he comes off to you... (I mean, if you want to be offended, I'm certain he's done artwork that's far easier to be offended by!)

One day we will find these mythical people who want to be offended.

 

[Uni-the-Unicorn!]

If his clarification changed your mind, you could always go back and edit out the name-calling.

I don’t like to rewrite history and my original statement was qualified. I didn’t say he was sexist. I said his comments “seemed” sexist

 

[TiQuinn]

Taken with no context, it isn't crazy, of course.

But the second you realize it's an Elmore painting, you would immediately realize how unlikely it would have been for Elmore to pass up an opportunity for some cheesecake.

So we can give the artist the benefit of the doubt: "Whoever thought it I [Elmore] would have painted [a gender-neutral rear view of a a female warrior] is quite crazy and do not know what they are talking about."

Read this way his statement makes perfect sense and is not controversial in the slightest. Let's be wary of denouncing statements before we know the full intent and story, shall we?

I’ve already said that I suspect Elmore was ambushed by someone seeking to get a hot quote elsewhere in the thread. Also Elmore clarified his original comment.

 

[gban007]

I completely reject this revisionist premise.

Because it is simply not true.

This is basically like trying to tell everyone that saw the painting over the past 40 years that their own two eyes lied to them.

But they didn't.

As Elmore stated; there was never any question that the Warrior was a Male.

He was spot on in his assessment:

"I recently was asked a question about the Ancient Red painting I did for the cover of the Red Box edition.
"Did you paint a male or female?"
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.

View attachment 362453

I think the people in this very thread who say they thought the character was female, or had friends who thought the character was female, would prove this wrong, that there was uncertainty / ambiguity for a number of people.

 

[Morrus]

I completely reject this revisionist premise.

And I completely reject your prescriptive premise. Because it’s simply not true.

You can repeat it over and over again, and I can repeat myself over and over again.

Fun this, isn’t it?

 

[CleverNickName]

It's fun to guess who has a background in visual art, and who doesn't, just by reading their posts.