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.

 

[Clint_L]

Yeah actually maybe I phrased it badly as "society-wide" when I just meant in movies and TV shows and frivolous entertainment stuff like that. I just meant that it's not a DnD-specific thing, and that generally WotC is better about being inclusive than they were here.

When people complain about a tiny little thing like this one specific change, what they're actually upset about is the overall trend not just because they don't like this one mini that they weren't even going to buy in the first place.

Would you say that cisgender white males have become underrepresented in media? For example, does the fact that most media stars cisgender white males rather than almost all media starring them mean that they are now underrepresented?

They constitute, on aggregate, about, what, 10% of humanity, at best. Is the claim that they have less than 10% representation? Or, if we are looking at just the US and Canada, they are, what, somewhere in the ballpark of 25%. Do they have less representation than that?

I'm a cisgender white dude. When I look at media, it seems obvious that my ilk are radically overrepresented. I mean, we can start adding up all the properties that feature main characters who resemble me, but it seems kind of pointless because we all know the answer.

 

[Scott Christian]

Patriarchy - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Cosmo and Vogue's chief editor's were women. They understand what sells - skin. Particularly aesthetically pleasing models showing skin. You can point to patriarchy all over the place, and much is true. But the real truth is you will not find a direct correlation to patriarchy and free-market advertising in the 80s, 90s, and 00s. It is way too convoluted for a direct line. It is an oversimplification of a freer society, relaxation of morals, and a boom in cheap color printing/publishing.

The market is the driver. They decide where to go. And the market for people under 30 in the 80s and 90s was driven by hypersexualization. It literally drove almost all advertisements, not just D&D. This included ads towards female markets as well. There is a reason Calvin Klein showed Mark Walburg in just his underwear grabbing a big old bulge. There is a reason every cologne and perfume ad showed three people lying half naked together. There is a reason so many book covers used a shirtless Fabio. I mean, even the Nokia phone ad for the 90s just showed a muscular arm doing a bicep pose with the phone balanced on the bicep.

No matter who ran the company, it was about sex and skin, especially for that target audience. It was not just a D&D thing that tried to appeal to horny teenagers. It was driven by a wasteland of ads that all did the same thing. But maybe by your reply, you mean to say that D&D was the driver for all those other companies. Maybe? I'd like to think so.

 

[Scott Christian]

So what can we glean from this sculpt given the artist and time in which it was made?

I mean, do you want an answer that you'll think about, or do you just want to try and quibble. My statement was clear: People who learn about art try to understand the artist and the time of the piece's creation. This way it can be placed into context. Context happens to be a big thing in art.

But if you really want an answer, I can try to give you one. Although, it is a bit like asking a historian to ask how people 25 years from now will look back on _______ historic event. The truth is, we do not know. We don't know because it hasn't been contextualized yet. But, if you want to prognosticate, I'll give it a try.

People will look back on this little sculpt as a reaction to D&D having more female players than ever before. Some might claim this was an effect of having more females at the gaming table. Others might claim it helped cause women to join. Still others might claim it was an attempt by the company to take advantage of a social opportunity. And yet others might insist the company was taking a good-willed stance.

 

[Scott Christian]

Time (and sales) will tell if the gender change matters to enough people.
But how many people play with miniatures anymore? Seems like a shrinking market.

I wonder this as well. But I think since the market is continuing to grow, you keep having new players buy minis. I mean, most players and certainly DMs I know, young or old, seem to have at least a few minis. But with digital being popular, I would think it would shrink had it not been for the increase in player/DM base.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Literally nobody is saying equality ought to feel like oppression. Rather that’s how some privileged folk act like they feel. All you have to do is check out the daily news and you’ll see evidence of it. You have pretty much bury your head in the sand to NOT see it.
And to people who value privilege, it stands to reason, after all it’s no longer privilege if EVERYBODY has it.

You are right that my paraphrasing was off. But your paraphrasing doens't seem to match Umbran's quote, nor the saying itself as I have heard it a number of times: which is Equality feels like oppression when you have been privileged. To me this just sounds a lot like news speak. I just don't like general dismissals, which this phrase really invites. It is always better to look t the particulars of a given claim. Here someone saying the gender of a figurine is oppressive, doesn't look like oppression to me. So I think Umbran is right on the particulars of this claim. But I think that phrase, where we start dismissing peoples claims because of what category we put them in, is wrong. And equality shoudn't feel like oppression. Saying it is the norm for peopel to feel oppressed because we are becoming more equal, I think that is a very bad approach to achieving equality.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

I though it was Patty Smyth?

 

[CapnZapp]

It's fantastic. Too bad Elmore is being weird about it.

He's not weird. He painted the warrior, had a male in mind, and said so. He explained that if he had had a female in mind, you'd probably recognize it as a female.

 

[CapnZapp]

I must say Larry seems a bit out of touch and sexist in that reply. A bit disappointing.

EDIT: glad to hear Larry clarified his comments.

If his clarification changed your mind, you could always go back and edit out the name-calling.

 

[CapnZapp]

Now, since the face was never shown (and obviously the character is fictional), WizKid has decided on a new interpretation, which of course is perfectly valid.

I don't think we're disputing the validity of the mini.

Of course, they could just have asked Elmore.

If they wanted a female hero, they didn't have to appropriate one Elmore thought of as male. Elmore drew hundreds of female heroes. If they wanted one fully clothed and couldn't find one of Elmore's, they could have chosen another artist's figure. They could even have explicitly stated they purposefully gender-reversed the old D&D figure instead of trying to sell the idea it was female all along. After all, we don't need Elmore to remind us this was always exceedingly unlikely.

None of this makes the new mini "invalid". But it's WizKid's actions choices causing the drama and not anyone else's.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

You create it, your definition is objectively correct

There is no such thing as “objectively” in art. It is, by its fundamental nature, subjective. It’s the effect on the viewer that is “real”, not what was in the mind of the artist at the time. That’s why great art tends to be ambiguous (see Mona Lisa). In this case the artist managed to be ambiguous by accident. Which is actually better, deliberate ambiguity can appear contrived.