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.

 

[Gradine]

It’s always been a diverse an inclusive hobby.

It very much has not, unfortunately.

No, no it hasn't.

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

They were outliers.

Yeah, this is better said than I possibly could, other to also include queer players (who have definitely grown more numerous in the interim!)

No shade on Gygax and the original designers,.

I mean... some shade on Gygax, surely

 

[Sacrosanct]

It very much has not, unfortunately.

Surely I have no idea what you're talking about. I mean, how is this not welcoming and inclusive? (sarcasm by the way)

Or just google any Clyde Caldwell art, and I love Caldwell!

 

[billd91]

Surely I have no idea what you're talking about. I mean, how is this not welcoming and inclusive? (sarcasm by the way)

View attachment 435305

Or just google any Clyde Caldwell art, and I love Caldwell!

Yeah, if they thought they were trying to be inclusive of women with this cover... well, someone pulled a boner on that decision.

 

[Koloth]

Surely I have no idea what you're talking about. I mean, how is this not welcoming and inclusive? (sarcasm by the way)

View attachment 435305

Or just google any Clyde Caldwell art, and I love Caldwell!

At the recent Norman Medieval Fair(Medieval Fair > Home), there were several women walking around in outfits very similar to that one. Many others in revealing but less so outfits. Also lots of guys trying to emulate Conan. IMO - the recent trend toward full coverage being the only acceptable imaging is ignoring what real people are wearing as costumes or imagining their characters wearing. At this point, pretty much any outfit should be acceptable provided it is presented as one of many options. Now if all female Unsung Heroes are dressed like the one on the cover while all males are fully covered, then that is a problem, at least by modern standards.

And yes, I did back the recent Clyde Caldwell Art Book KS.

 

[Sacrosanct]

At the recent Norman Medieval Fair(Medieval Fair > Home), there were several women walking around in outfits very similar to that one. Many others in revealing but less so outfits. Also lots of guys trying to emulate Conan. IMO - the recent trend toward full coverage being the only acceptable imaging is ignoring what real people are wearing as costumes or imagining their characters wearing. At this point, pretty much any outfit should be acceptable provided it is presented as one of many options. Now if all female Unsung Heroes are dressed like the one on the cover while all males are fully covered, then that is a problem, at least by modern standards.

And yes, I did back the recent Clyde Caldwell Art Book KS.

I don't want to speak for women, but the issue as I understand it is the disparity there. The men are dressed in effective armor while women are pretty much naked. Other very common depictions of women is that they are always in a submissive pose deferential to a male, or they are in a scene where they always need to be rescued. Even the "heroic" women are sexualized, like nipples showing through chain mail...

If I have not captured some of the main complaints of women, I hope they shall correct me.

 

[Misanthrope Prime]

At the recent Norman Medieval Fair(Medieval Fair > Home), there were several women walking around in outfits very similar to that one. Many others in revealing but less so outfits. Also lots of guys trying to emulate Conan. IMO - the recent trend toward full coverage being the only acceptable imaging is ignoring what real people are wearing as costumes or imagining their characters wearing. At this point, pretty much any outfit should be acceptable provided it is presented as one of many options. Now if all female Unsung Heroes are dressed like the one on the cover while all males are fully covered, then that is a problem, at least by modern standards.

And yes, I did back the recent Clyde Caldwell Art Book KS.

This isn't the first time I've heard this particular argument, but I hope it's your first time hearing this very common rebuttal.

The difference between a man walking around like Conan and a woman wearing a "chainmail bikini" is that, broadly, the chainmail bikini "is not for her". It's a man's fantasy to be a big, buff, capable, masculine barbarian, and it's also a man's fantasy to have a scantily clad woman as a prize or an object. This is a result of the philosophic and artistic concept of the "male gaze"; that if we assume that there is a patriarchy in place, that patriarchy determines what art does or doesn't get made, so that the only "legitimate" way of looking at or portraying women still exists to titillate heterosexual men (and, of course, there are also homoerotic forms of the male gaze to turn men into possessions and objects for men). If a "female gaze" (or any other kind of gaze for any other sex, gender or sexuality) exists, it really only started existing sometime in the 20th century when explicitly feminist and queer artists identified and then started actively working against the male gaze, and unfortunately there are like, what, four thousands of years of patriarchial art we have to get through first.

While individual women are perfectly capable of choosing to wear scant clothing in public and she does so of her own volition, the forces that may have influenced her to make that decision may be due to what is called "internalized misogyny"; to see herself through the patriarchial lens of the male gaze and to then objectify herself.

 

[Scribe]

Surely I have no idea what you're talking about. I mean, how is this not welcoming and inclusive? (sarcasm by the way)

View attachment 435305

Or just google any Clyde Caldwell art, and I love Caldwell!

The crime here is neither of those dudes hit the gym and she clearly does, no wonder she's the leader, out front and taking charge.

 

[Gradine]

Yeah that's the thing a lot of people miss when they try to "both sides" the whole Conan clothing thing. Sonja and Conan both look the way that they do for the male gaze. They both exist for (straight) male sexualized fantasy, it's just one exists as an object to conquer and the other exists as a masculine self-projection.

There's nuance, of course, particularly in modern contexts. You see it with so-called "looksmaxxers" (who improve their physical form as much if not more for the approval of other males than for women) and you also see it with women at ren fairs or what have you who dress sexy because they like it or because it feels good or to attract the attention of men/women/both/other or all the above. It's not always because of "internalized misogyny".

Of course, that nuance introduces a wedge that poor actors use to excuse their obvious male gaze fantasy chainmail bikini art, but that's just life. The reality is, as long as you're aware of the difference it's actually quite easy to tell

 

[Misanthrope Prime]

Yeah that's the thing a lot of people miss when they try to "both sides" the whole Conan clothing thing. Sonja and Conan both look the way that they do for the male gaze. They both exist for (straight) male sexualized fantasy, it's just one exists as an object to conquer and the other exists as a masculine self-projection.

There's nuance, of course, particularly in modern contexts. You see it with so-called "looksmaxxers" (who improve their physical form as much if not more for the approval of other males than for women) and you also see it with women at ren fairs or what have you who dress sexy because they like it or because it feels good or to attract the attention of men/women/both/other or all the above. It's not always because of "internalized misogyny".

Of course, that nuance introduces a wedge that poor actors use to excuse their obvious male gaze fantasy chainmail bikini art, but that's just life. The reality is, as long as you're aware of the difference it's actually quite easy to tell

I mean at that point I'd start asking "why does it feel good for you to receive sexualized attention from men?" but at this point I'm getting Foucauldian.

 

[Gradine]

I mean at that point I'd start asking "why does it feel good for you to receive sexualized attention from men?" but at this point I'm getting Foucauldian.

The point is that it doesn't. That isn't why the hypothetical woman in question is dressing sexy. My point is that there are plenty of reasons why a woman would want to accentuate their body in varying ways that have absolutely nothing to do with receiving sexualized attention from men, and the fact that it generally often does is a "con" that is often outweighed by the other "pros".