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.

 

[gnarlygninja]

Given that criticism inherently relies on opinion, I'm not sure there's such a thing as an "unbiased" critic. I'm not even sure what that would mean.

The unbiased critics are the ones that agree with me.

 

[Scott Christian]

edit - whatever. Shakespeare still only has two plays that are almost entirely original to him, and everyone who knows Shakespeare knows it. That doesn't make them better, worse, or anything other than his only two plays where he seems to have invented the plot by himself.

I also point out that I have an MA, and am ABD on my doctorate in literature, and have taught it for decades, so maybe I'm not entirely without knowledge in this area. I'm not going to waste everyone's time further in defending my casual observation of a well-known fact.

I am well aware you are educated in the subject. Please then, throw out a few books by famous literary critics who use the term "original" so insignificantly. I do not discount your knowledge, nor do I discount you expertise. I just think it is the wrong term, and you made a mistake using that specific term.

But we can agree to disagree. You think every scholar knows and agrees with your interpretation. I don't. That's ok.

 

[Dire Bare]

I am well aware you are educated in the subject. Please then, throw out a few books by famous literary critics who use the term "original" so insignificantly. I do not discount your knowledge, nor do I discount you expertise. I just think it is the wrong term, and you made a mistake using that specific term.

But we can agree to disagree. You think every scholar knows and agrees with your interpretation. I don't. That's ok.

He didn't use the wrong term.

Not EVERY scholar likely agrees on anything, but as someone also educated in the field, @Clint_L is correct.

 

[Scott Christian]

He didn't use the wrong term.

Not EVERY scholar likely agrees on anything, but as someone also educated in the field, @Clint_L is correct.

That's great. I am always open to being wrong and adding to my knowledge base. Just show me all of these renowned critics who use the term for Shakespeare in such a way. My guess is, for every one critic you find, I can find one that doesn't agree on that definition.

It is like I said, put 100 critics in a room, and they are not going to agree on the definition of "original." In fact, you might get 100 different definitions because they all love to argue about semantics. But if you insist that is how you were taught Shakespeare, then that is ok. We can agree to disagree.

 

[CleverNickName]

This isn't my argument but I'm gonna chime in to remind everyone that nobody is going to do your homework for you. If you truly want to see arguments that contradict your point, you would have looked them up yourself first. Repeated demands for others to do the looking for you is never good: at best you look lazy, at worst you're accusing those who disagree of lying.

Anyway. I'm gonna butt out now. Maybe I'll be back when the discussion returns to the Red Box artwork.

 

[MGibster]

Anyway. I'm gonna butt out now. Maybe I'll be back when the discussion returns to the Red Box artwork.

Fun fact: When I was modeling for the painting, we ran out of olive oil and I had to use grape seed oil instead.