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.

 

[Mannahnin]

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".

Depends on the woman or man, right?

Of the roughly 25% of Americans who have gym memberships, and of the roughly 20% of THOSE who go 3+ times a week, and of the even smaller fraction of us who actually bust our asses and work hard... Every time I go in the gym I see that quite a few of them are doing cardio for health and weight. Some of that's vanity and attractiveness, but it's a mix Of the fraction of us who are focusing on resistance training, certainly quite a lot of us are doing it at least in part for vanity. Dudes usually focusing on arms, chest, and shoulders, women hitting glutes hard.

 

[Misanthrope Prime]

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.

Were a scantily clad woman to pass by me on the street, it'd be fallacious to assume that she chose to dress that way for my enjoyment and that I have to give her a benefit in some way, but I think it'd be reasonable to conclude that she may be incentivized to dress that way because she will be given unspecified rewards by the patriarchy, in the same way that a Jew is incentivized to wear a yarmulke because they would be given unspecified rewards by Judaism; both are ways to conspicuously display your submission to an invisible power.

 

[Scribe]

Dudes usually focusing on arms, chest, and shoulders, women hitting glutes hard.

Exactly.

When I was young we saw way fewer women in the gym anyway, but they were more going through the circuits.

Now?

If I could bet, I'd be making bank. The guys are upper body, maybe squats and a tiny bit of cardio, the girls are overwhelmingly glutes, squats, core, and cardio.

Now this isn't 100% and yeah some people are looking after weight loss, heart health, but again if you or I were betting? It would break down as outlined, and I would be rich.

 

[Gradine]

Were a scantily clad woman to pass by me on the street, it'd be fallacious to assume that she chose to dress that way for my enjoyment and that I have to give her a benefit in some way, but I think it'd be reasonable to conclude that she may be incentivized to dress that way because she will be given unspecified rewards by the patriarchy, in the same way that a Jew is incentivized to wear a yarmulke because they would be given unspecified rewards by Judaism; both are ways to conspicuously display your submission to an invisible power.

This is where the disconnect is, because the reality is, that isn't a reasonable conclusion to make at all, and it hasn't been since the arrival of second-wave feminism, at the bare minimum.

 

[Mannahnin]

This is where the disconnect is, because the reality is, that isn't a reasonable conclusion to make at all, and it hasn't been since the arrival of second-wave feminism, at the bare minimum.

This will vary a bit depending on where you are, the local culture, etc.

 

[Gradine]

This will vary a bit depending on where you are, the local culture, etc.

Of course; I can't really speak for cultures outside of the Anglosphere in which I reside.

 

[Mannahnin]

Exactly.

When I was young we saw way fewer women in the gym anyway, but they were more going through the circuits.

Now?

If I could bet, I'd be making bank. The guys are upper body, maybe squats and a tiny bit of cardio, the girls are overwhelmingly glutes, squats, core, and cardio.

Now this isn't 100% and yeah some people are looking after weight loss, heart health, but again if you or I were betting? It would break down as outlined, and I would be rich.

Maybe I'm just not following your breakdown. At my gym probably at least 50% of the folks are just hitting cardio. Though that may vary between something like 70% of the women and 30% of the dudes. And of course the older folks (which is, of course, generally older than my middle-aged self) are more routinely there for health and longevity reasons, where the younger you are the more likely it is that you're in there for vanity and/or to support your athletic activities.

 

[Mannahnin]

Of course; I can't really speak for cultures outside of the Anglosphere in which I reside.

Sure, though even in the anglosphere the cultural impact of feminism definitely varies regionally.

 

[Scribe]

Maybe I'm just not following your breakdown. At my gym probably at least 50% of the folks are just hitting cardio. Though that may vary between something like 70% of the women and 30% of the dudes. And of course the older folks (which is, of course, generally older than my middle-aged self) are more routinely there for health and longevity reasons, where the younger you are the more likely it is that you're in there for vanity and/or to support your athletic activities.

Maybe it's just my location. Most are younger than me, most are already in decent shape, and the vast majority are weight training more than anything else.

In fact I think I commented in the lifting thread when I started, "I'm surrounded by fitness models, what's going on!"

 

[Misanthrope Prime]

This is where the disconnect is, because the reality is, that isn't a reasonable conclusion to make at all, and it hasn't been since the arrival of second-wave feminism, at the bare minimum.

I was under the impression the question in second wave feminism was "is heterosexual sex good or bad" or perhaps "prosocial or antisocial", which isn't the question I'm asking. What I'm asking is "is sexuality in service to ideology?"