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.

 

[Dire Bare]

It’s always been a diverse an inclusive hobby.

No, no it hasn't.

I mean, have women been playing D&D since '74? Have people of color? YES.

They were outliers.

No shade on Gygax and the original designers, no shade on TSR, no shade on the fans of D&D back in the 70s and 80s. It just reflects the origins of the game, and society at the time.

The game is significantly more inclusive and diverse now than it was back then . . . and that ruffles some folks in ways they aren't always comfortable to admit.

 

[Jahydin]

Pundy went out of his way* to state this as clear and obvious truth, but it doesn't pass the sniff test. How many people knew he was really a pipe-smoker? Certainly how many people at WotC? Those who enter his echo-chamber know he always uses that picture of (I think it is) Bill the Butcher from Gangs of New York as his forum avatar, but even then it's not really clear that the pipe was real to him and not just the character (who seems to fit his self image regardless). But again that's not something the average WotC employee would know about. Beyond that, he's just never been important enough to take a swing at. Zak Sabbath, Ken Whitman, heck, Justin Lanasa -- even among foils or thorns in the game's side, Pundy has been something of an also-ran.
*well, deeply into his way, since self-declared victimhood is part and parcel of his personal brand

Just a reminder he was one of eight consultants listed in the D&D 5e Player's Handbook, so not a complete unknown to WotC.

Also, his pipe smoking was well known because it played a prominent part in his videos. I had just a passing familiarity of Pundit and even I made the connection at the time.

 

[MGibster]

However, I think we all have different sensibilities and judge every gender-swap, or change of ethnicity in a character differently. The gender-swap of Starbuck was evoked earlier in the thread. Personally, I really liked it. And as others have said Katee Sackhoff was fantastic in the role. But there's other movies or games where sometimes, to me, it just feels like they did it just to do it, and not because it really made sense or would improve the product.

I think part of the problem there might be that a lot of people didn't realize how different the new BSG was going to be compared to the original. It has the same basic premise of the original, the last battlestar Galactica leading a rag-tag fugitive fleet on a lonely quest, but it was a radically different show. I certainly didn't realize how much different the new series was going to be compared to the old one. And if it didn't have Dirk Bennedict, then who cares who plays Starbuck? A lot of us grew up in the era of piss poor adaptations, so when I see minor changes I often wonder what else they're going to change.

Sometimes I do care about changing race, gender, etc., etc. in adaptations. If someone tried to make a Blade movie starring Jake Gyllenaal then I'm not going to watch it no matter how good people say it is. Other times I couldn't care less. Ving Rhames as Kingpin? Sure. Ruth Negga as Tulip in Preacher? She was cute as a button and did a great job. I've heard Giancarlo Esposito might be interested in playing Professor X and I'd be down for that.

Now, I don't really understand how the character on the cover can be such an issue. It already was a faceless character. It doesn't have a name, it doesn't have a face. You could imply that he was probably male. But it changes no canon, it's not on the cover of a book, it's a side product. And it's just fun. But to be fair, I didn't grow up with that cover. I don't have nostalgy for it.

I'm with you on that one. It's not like they made Drizz't a halfling or something.

 

[Clint_L]

Well, not a good idea to drive people apart either.

Personally, I play D&D to escape the grind of the real world. You can market the game and be inclusive and do it inclusively. The marketing concept that hate-watching is still watching is exhausting and manipulative.

I do not think that was the point of the change on WizKids part although it would have been genius to make a uncommon male version and an ultra rare female version and watch the same people who complained about the swap chase the ultra rare female version.

Since when is deciding to depict a previously anonymous figure as female “driving people apart?” Do you think it would have NOT been driving them apart to depict it as male?

The people who are driven off by inclusivity are welcome to leave IMO.

 

[Clint_L]

The reality of what probably happened is that Wizkids was releasing miniatures based on old art, and said art is notably lacking in women, aside from some very stereotypical roles. Wizkids normally aspires to something approaching gender parity with its character miniatures, so I imagine they were looking for opportunities and someone noticed that this art could be male or female. So making it female was the obvious choice.

 

[Maxperson]

It really baffles you that anyone could ever have a different interpretation, doesn't it?

I 100% believe Elmore when he says that he drew a male fighter. I also never once thought the warrior was female, but then I haven't really looked at the boxed set since I was in my early 20's when 99% of the hobby was male. Looking now I can absolutely see how people could look at the picture and see a female fighter. I can't tell one way or the other from the angle we see and the stuff being worn.

 

[Maxperson]

I have no idea what admiral ackbar has to do with this conversation

Like this whole thread, "It's a trap!"

 

[Maxperson]

Was the gender-swapped warrior "necessary"? No. Was it a clever and fun way to bring some more inclusivity to D&D? Yes. Was it appreciated by some folks who generally do not feel seen in our hobby? Yes. Personally, I think the decision by WizKids and WotC to produce this mini was awesome! More please!

That's no longer true. 13 of the first 20 pieces of art in Tasha's had females in them, 12 were solo female artwork. 7 of the first 10 that had humanoids in Xanathar's had females in them. I didn't go further than those 30 pieces of art. For decades now WotC has included tons and tons of artwork containing females, and there are also a ton female minis out there. One more piece of female artwork or mini is at this point just one more among the masses.

There are ways to be more inclusive of women, but artwork isn't one of them. WotC should include advice in the core books on not excluding women and suggest inclusion of women in games. That would provide more inclusivity.

 

[Dire Bare]

That's no longer true. 13 of the first 20 pieces of art in Tasha's had females in them, 12 were solo female artwork. 7 of the first 10 that had humanoids in Xanathar's had females in them. I didn't go further than those 30 pieces of art. For decades now WotC has included tons and tons of artwork containing females, and there are also a ton female minis out there. One more piece of female artwork or mini is at this point just one more among the masses.

There are ways to be more inclusive of women, but artwork isn't one of them. WotC should include advice in the core books on not excluding women and suggest inclusion of women in games. That would provide more inclusivity.

WotC has been working to make D&D more inclusive since they took over the brand. Representation has improved significantly for many years now. 5E has been the most inclusive edition (IMO) since about 2014.

So, we solved inclusion and should stop working on it? We should stop worrying about women and people of color being represented in the visual art in the books (and miniatures)?

"There are ways to be more inclusive of women, but artwork isn't one of them."

Wow. I guess we'll just have to disagree hard on that one.

 

[Maxperson]

WotC has been working to make D&D more inclusive since they took over the brand. Representation has improved significantly for many years now. 5E has been the most inclusive edition (IMO) since about 2014.

So, we solved inclusion and should stop working on it? We should stop worrying about women and people of color being represented in the visual art in the books (and miniatures)?

"There are ways to be more inclusive of women, but artwork isn't one of them."

Wow. I guess we'll just have to disagree hard on that one.

First, I didn't say they should stop inclusion. I said that artwork/minis of women have succeeded and yet more of it doesn't add more inclusion at this point. Second, I even suggested a way that they COULD increase inclusion, so clearly I wasn't suggesting that they should stop working on it. Third, I very specifically limited it to art about females in order to keep it in the context of this thread/discussion and didn't talk about minority art, which is still lacking.