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.

 

[Jahydin]

Maybe this was done to raise awareness on the importance of pronouns and the pain caused by misgendering others...

 

[CleverNickName]

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.

I know right? Funny how that works.

 

[Scott Christian]

It's fun to guess who has a background in visual art, and who doesn't, just by reading their posts.

It's even more fun to guess who is married to an art professor just by reading their posts.

 

[dbolack]

It is quite straightforward why this:
View attachment 362578

Disproves all of this:

Okay, you got me. Which identified, non-fictional individual is in the painting.

I'll wait.

 

[dbolack]

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.

No.

You cannot conceive of anyone believing the figure is ambiguous. That ain't the same thing by a country mile.

 

[Warpiglet-7]

Surprise!

What you knew all along is “purposely and clearly presented” it might surprise you! And even though we did not change anything, we are thinking you might be shocked!

Why are people so afraid to acknowledge a retcon? Wizkids isn’t!

They are good at marketing. Lord knows they have enough of my money!

 

[Umbran]

I said my argument was not based on any "long standing custom or general consensus"...

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

But... that nobody questioned it isn't evidence of truth. It is evidence of a long-standing consensus! "We all agree," is a consensus!

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

We have the intent of the author. But authorial intent is hardly the only element to consider in a work.

A writing professor of mine made a point to our class many years ago. "There are at least three texts to any work of art. There's what the author intended, what actually ends up on the page, and what the audience gets from the work. All of these are valid in consideration of the work."

Exhibit A is the painting itself.

It is quite straightforward why this:
View attachment 362578

Disproves all of this:

"Proof" doesn't have a lot of place interpretation of art.

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.

No. Elmore has a style, a visual language he uses. But Elmore's style is not the final, end-all be-all statement on how the male and female form are to be depicted in art, or what they actually are. There are female forms, both in real life and in art, that do not match Elmore's style and are still valid female forms. Just like not all women look like Barbie, not all women look like Elmore women.

The "fact" is that we do not see the figure's primary or secondary sexual characteristics. No so much as significant body hair. And the figure is crouched, leaning away from us, foreshortening the torso, such that we must interpolate body proportions. We must make assumptions about those proportions.

And, if we are not steeped in Elmore's particular visual language, having a stocky, muscular woman then becomes a possibility.

 

[dbolack]

And, if we are not steeped in Elmore's particular visual language, having a stocky, muscular woman then becomes a possibility.

I've trying to figure out how to bring this in.

This was the first Elmore piece I was exposed to and it was a few years before I caught his general patterns, whereas I presumed female and never really thought about it again until this thread popped up. Had I seen the cover after say, 5 years of seeing Elmore art, I probably would have had a different assumption. ( The lack of a feather in the hair... )

 

[Umbran]

Why are people so afraid to acknowledge a retcon?

I cannot speak to the thoughts of any particular person here, but I can speak to generalities.

People often don't like to challenge their preconceived notions, for two basic reasons (among others):

1) Most basic - it implies that they were wrong to have that notion. Being wrong is a shot to the ego, and among humans implies a loss of social standing. So, folks will resist being wrong.

2) More subtle, but powerful - the processes by which one comes to their notions are, ultimately, part of the self. If one was, in fact, wrong in a preconceived notion, that implies the need to change those thought processes, change the self. Humans really, really do not like to change their self, their very identity. It is hard to do. So, we will go to great lengths to not do it.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

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.

People have been aggressively reinterpreting Shakespeare for 400 years and no one ever seems to worry about what he'd think about any of it.