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.

 

[Sacrosanct]

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

The popularity of the Fireman's calendar comes to mind

 

[Dioltach]

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.

The men look like they're there for the average middle-aged office worker to project their identity onto when they role up their D&D character.

 

[Misanthrope Prime]

The popularity of the Fireman's calendar comes to mind

I assure you, "male physique photography" well predates feminism. The shocking thing is it also predates Stonewall.

 

[TheAlkaizer]

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".

I've always had issues wrapping my head around the topic of the male gaze, and how women dress and for whom. It's a topic that came up prominently during my university studies, I felt like I agreed and understood bits of it. But I always saw incoherence in the whole of it.

On one hand, I'm being told that women don't dress scantily, or make themselves attractive, or dress cute to attract the gaze of men. They do it for themselves, or other women. But on the other hand, I'm being told that if a women dresses scantily, or is conventionally attractive, or dresses cute in a piece of media, it's for the gaze of men.

I understand that there's more than appearance. The way these characters interact with other characters, their role in the story and the prevalence of the representation are important. But still, I could never bring together both statements.

 

[Scribe]

The men look like they're there for the average middle-aged office worker to project their identity onto when they role up their D&D character.

Yeah, and how sad I that?

It's Fantasy. If I aspired to look like a middle aged guy with the body of a guy who doesn't lift with graying hair who works from a desk...I would stop training and look in the mirror!

 

[Scribe]

I've always had issues wrapping my head around the topic of the male gaze, and how women dress and for whom. It's a topic that came up prominently during my university studies, I felt like I agreed and understood bits of it. But I always saw incoherence in the whole of it.

On one hand, I'm being told that women don't dress scantily, or make themselves attractive, or dress cute to attract the gaze of men. They do it for themselves, or other women. But on the other hand, I'm being told that if a women dresses scantily, or is conventionally attractive, or dresses cute in a piece of media, it's for the gaze of men.

I understand that there's more than appearance. The way these characters interact with other characters, their role in the story and the prevalence of the representation are important. But still, I could never bring together both statements.

It's really not that complicated.

I know with 95% certainty what the women in the gym are working on, same as I know what the men are working on.

And it has nothing to do with "just basic health and wellness".

 

[Misanthrope Prime]

On one hand, I'm being told that women don't dress scantily, or make themselves attractive, or dress cute to attract the gaze of men. They do it for themselves, or other women. But on the other hand, I'm being told that if a women dresses scantily, or is conventionally attractive, or dresses cute in a piece of media, it's for the gaze of men.

As an asexual, stuff like this didn't click for me until I remembered the old Oscar Wilde quote, and I defer to him as an expert on sexuality.

"Everything in the world is about sex, except sex. Sex is about power."

Do I get up and go to work everyday "for capitalism?" No, I say it's for my liberty, my life, my family, maybe even to attract someone who'd want to naughty word me. I don't do it "for capitalism", but capitalism still makes me work.

 

[Mannahnin]

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.

TBF there's no actual way to tell how jacked those guys are. The armor, as real armor tends to do, completely conceals their physiques.

The men look like they're there for the average middle-aged office worker to project their identity onto when they role up their D&D character.

During that period as I recall it was very common for the faces in these quasi-photorealistic paintings to be directly modeled on fellow TSR staffers.

 

[Scribe]

TBF there's no actual way to tell how jacked those guys are. The armor, as real armor tends to do, completely conceals their physiques.

Sure, reality once again creeping in. Let's exaggerate those dimensions, get some taper going on there, and for the love of God get some flowing hair on at least one of them!

 

[Mannahnin]

I've always had issues wrapping my head around the topic of the male gaze, and how women dress and for whom. It's a topic that came up prominently during my university studies, I felt like I agreed and understood bits of it. But I always saw incoherence in the whole of it.

On one hand, I'm being told that women don't dress scantily, or make themselves attractive, or dress cute to attract the gaze of men. They do it for themselves, or other women. But on the other hand, I'm being told that if a women dresses scantily, or is conventionally attractive, or dresses cute in a piece of media, it's for the gaze of men.

I understand that there's more than appearance. The way these characters interact with other characters, their role in the story and the prevalence of the representation are important. But still, I could never bring together both statements.

It can be tricky to delineate sometimes. One of the key points I focus on is "whose choice is it?"

The internalized misogyny angle is trickier to suss out, but when it's a media portrayal, it's generally someone other than the woman, the actress/model, making the choice about how she appears. How she's posed (like the now-cliched Black Widow or other female superhero twisted poses designed to show off both butt and boobs at the same time), dressed, and presented.

IRL certainly women SOMETIMES dress up to be attractive to dudes. But in any given instance I don't know and shouldn't assume that's why. Maybe she's dressed up just to feel good. Or to show off on a girls' night with her friends. Or maybe it really is for a guy. But if a woman is walking down the street dressed to the nines I shouldn't assume that's for my benefit or to attract my attention- unless she's on her way to a date with me. Whereas if she's dressed that way in a media product marketed to me, it's more likely that it's marketing aiming at my gaze.