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.

 

[Riley]

Yep, I'll buy that mini. Holmes was my introduction to D&D decades ago.

Holmes was half of my first experience.

My first adventure was as an AD&D Ranger exploring the Holmes sample dungeon!

 

[MGibster]

All I know is that Nintendo better not change my beloved Samas Aran from a male to a female. Just look at that picture. You can't get more manly than that.

True story: Way back in 1987, my friends and I were playing some Nintendo when we beat Metroid for the first time. Spoiler alert for a near 40 year old game: Samas Aran, the protagonist, walks to the middle of the screen and her armor disappears to reveal she had been a woman this whole. I guess my friends and I were what you might have called slow, because our reaction was "He turned into a girl!"

 

[Dire Bare]

Then when Generation X were widely known as the "slacker" generation?

Well, I'm still a slacker at least.

 

[Senior_WotC_Janitor]

Fun fact: the essay that gave us the phrase "death of the author" was published over 15 years before Elmore painted that box art.

I am very impressed that someone actually brought this up.

 

[Jaeger]

There's no such thing. Show me this "long standing custom or general consensus" (by which I mean predating this thread).

I said my argument was not based on any "long standing custom or general consensus"; i.e. it was not a prescriptive one like you claimed. But truth based.

But if you want to go there: Do a search on this or any other D&D related forum.

Find me the discussion thread outside of this topic where the Red Box Warrior being a man is in doubt or questioned.

As Elmore has said: "There was never a question in all these years about the male warrior. No one thought it was a female warrior."

You're repeating yourself. Repeating something over and over again when somebody disagrees with it doesn't make you correct, it just makes you tedious. You're not answering anything I've said or any questions I've asked you.

It does when we have the facts straight from the artist that drew it in the first place.

Otherwise you are claiming that Elmore didn't know what he was saying or drawing.

And as has been previously stated:

Elmore specifically states there would have been zero ambiguity if he intended to draw a female figure. I'm inclined to believe him over you.

But Elmore's statement is Exhibit B.

Exhibit A is the painting itself.

It is quite straightforward why this:

Disproves all of this:

Except that it cannot be true. It is art of an unidentified, fictional being.

Whatever Elmore intended to paint, there is no gender in the painting. None whatevsoever. It's not there. Show me it. You can't. Because it's not there. That painting shows no gender.

For the above two statements to be true, one would have to accept that Larry Elmore does not know how to convey the differences between the male and female form in his art.

I don't think you would find many that would agree with such a proposition.

Simplified examples: (Compare to the warrior image above)

In every aspect that is visible to the eye; The Red box warrior conforms to a depiction of the male form.

Elmore has drawn several pieces of women from the back not showing their chest or faces. (I will refrain from posting them here) yet somehow, they are unambiguously women.

Suffice it to say: "If it was a woman, you would know it for I'm pretty famous for painting women."

This is easily proven by comparing any of the Elmore pieces showing women from the back or at a backwards angle to the red box warrior painting.

When looking at his artwork; no one can reasonably claim that Elmore's chosen depiction of the Red Box Warrior is genderless, or unidentifiable as a man.


This whole thing is just a ham-fisted gender swap done by Wizkids/Wotc for their own purposes.

I am personally inclined towards the following explanation:

But please don’t act like this is anything other than an attempt to create buzz by subverting expectations…

I personally find that whole shtick rather underwhelming at this point.

 

[Autumnal]

Someone mentioned doing a lot of work for hire, many pages ago, and not agreeing with the idea that Elmore ought to be allowed an authoritative say. I agree with that, having done a lot of work for hire, some of which changed work of my predecessors and some of which has been changed in small ways and big ones by my successors.

Some thoughts:

I find it stress reducing to treat each edition as its own continuum. Changed mechanics, which seem to be the most reliable marker of edition change in most RPGs (not all, just most), offer a good opportunity for setting tweaks. There may be spelled out to the public or might not. Even when new setting stuff generally aligns pretty closely with what’s come before, not assuming it’s all the same makes things more relaxed all around.

Work-for-hire creators should have a strong sense of head-canon versus official decisions. A fair number of pro fiction writers have done fanfic in settings and with characters they created. In the Storyteller's Vault on DriveThru, you can find fan supplements by people who had been working on cancelled lines, doing work they might have done if the lines had continued. And so on. But it’s important to preserve the awareness of what’s official and what isn’t.

I can tell you what I would have preferred to happen in cases where I don’t like how things went. But I am not entitled to say that it should have or ought to have gone my way. That’s not how work for hire goes. When we turn in our work and get paid for it, our authority over the work is done. And this is true for Elmore’s art work, too.

By my preferences, then, no version of figures now can retroactively changed what’s come before. And the public can decide for themselves whether we’re looking at different renderings of the same person all along or not, for our various head-canons. Elmore can say what his intentions were and WotC can say what’s official at the moment, and neither of those is authoritative unless we’re asking about his intentions or their policy of the moment.

This may seem hair-splitting, but it’s not. Keeping these distinctions clear is very important for reducing stress and unnecessary conflict.

 

[TiQuinn]

As Elmore has said: "There was never a question in all these years about the male warrior. No one thought it was a female warrior."

You keep talking about what Elmore said and yet even Elmore has said that we are free to interpret the art as we see fit, “for that is the magic of art”, and that he was responding to a question asked in a particular context.

 

[Yenrak]

The warrior always looked female to me. I had assumed it was a woman because she’s wearing a skirt and wearing boots that look feminine to me.

 

[Hussar]

It's always funny to me how "authorial intent" only ever seems to be brought up when certain changes are made. When other changes are made, no one seems to care.

 

[J.Quondam]

When looking at his artwork; no one can reasonably claim that Elmore's chosen depiction of the Red Box Warrior is genderless, or unidentifiable as a man.

And yet, plenty of people have claimed just that. Or more accurately, they've claimed that what is presented on that box can be envisioned more expansively than whatever was seen by default by typical gamers of the era, myself included. And I think Elmore's amended comments on the issue reflect that.

There's nothing to "prove" here. It just boils down to the basic fact that it's not for you or Larry Elmore or anyone to decide what's "reasonable" for someone else to imagine.