D&D General D&D Red Box: Who Is The Warrior?

A WizKids miniature reveals the iconic character's face for the first time.
Screenshot 2024-05-07 at 22.27.52.png


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.

Screenshot 2024-05-07 at 22.31.00.png

paladininhell.jpg

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.


redboxwarriormini.png




s-l1600.jpg

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.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Larry Elmore, right? Only asking in case I missed some lore here.
Frank Mentzer. Guy who wrote the '83 Basic set.
Yeah you're right. I almost deleted the post as soon as I'd made it, but decided to let it stand and endure the pillorying instead.
To be fair to you, 'women dressed to the male gaze' and 'dead women as male motivation' are distinct issues. That she's a veritable poster-child of the later doesn't change that she has some positive qualities with regard to the former.
But hey, she could have been in chainmail bikini. She probably isn't because Aleena comes from the Red Box basic game which was intended for 10 year-old Munchkins like me. °

° "Please, Grognard was my father, I'm a Munchkin."
To a significant degree. Mind you, you can still see the tropes, even if they are muted. On Mentzer Basic player's book pages 7&8, even in a full chainmail suit (and dead) she is drawn making sure we know the shape of her legs and butt. Elmore had a task (make her pretty, make her desirable, make the loss of her the reader's loss) and he was effective at it.

I know some of the people already chaffing at topics like 'male gaze,' so let's be clear about some things. Aleena was my first* fictional character crush -- you have no idea how many times I went through the starter adventure** trying to find a way where she survives so she could totally be my girlfriend and of course she'd want to and we could race go carts together and I could show her off to my friends and I hear there are these things called boobut was unsuccessful. Likewise, I like me some women in bikinis*** (chainmail or otherwise). I even like a lot of the Elmore pictures of beautiful women in fantasy scenarios (this one being a notable example). This is all okay. It is okay to enjoy the sexual- and beauty- qualities of women and women in fantasy. The issue comes at the demographic level, when a surfeit of depictions of people like you are depicted predominantly as an enticement for others and a dearth are a fictive fantasy of your own, etc.
*perhaps after Eilonwy from the Chronicles of Prydain, or maybe one of the X-Men.
**that there are only two endings apparently not registering as limiting the options.
***Fortunately so does my wife, and we can eingage in some ethically sourced exploration of that
 

log in or register to remove this ad




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.

Nope, not the first time hearing this particular rebuttal. Funny how many people create viewpoints along the lines of "It is always about what the men think..." to answer things like this. Almost like a lot of folks think that women are incapable of independent though and are always concerned with "Must make men happy." It seems just as likely that a reason for the guy to walk around like Conan showing his stuff is to attract the 'female gaze'. It works both ways.

As I said in the earlier post, the problem with RPG artwork comes when ALL women are in chain mail bikinis and only guys are covered. If both clothing options are equally represented for both sexes, then IMO it is fine.
 

I think the counterpoint being made is that the picture of the shapely woman in a chainmail bikini and the picture of the jacked man in the loincloth are both for the male gaze: the former is a male sexual fantasy, and the later is a male power fantasy.

It's not about the clothing options. To truly be "equal," you would need to show me a painting of a non-sexualized, powerful woman, next to a weaker, sexualized man.
 
Last edited:

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!
Sacrosanct, can you tell us what is going on in this picture? I remember seeing it in the past and it is quite shocking. Why is this woman wearing nothing but a sporran? Who is she? What makes her an unsung hero?
 




Recent & Upcoming Releases

Remove ads

Recent & Upcoming Releases

Remove ads

Top