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.

 

[MGibster]

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

In this case I don't think it's because it's a retcon. They're producing a product designed to tug at out heartstrings with pure Columbian grade nostalgia. I personally don't really care because I'm not in the market for pre-painted miniatures. But if I wanted one for nostalgia's sake I might be less likely to buy it because it's a woman instead of a man.

That said, it's a good looking minature. Assuming that's a production copy and not something dolled up by the marketing department. It really does look like the warrior from the painting.

 

[Warpiglet-7]

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.

I don’t really have a dog in the fight but Elmore being very much alive is a significant difference.

But mostly people want to justify their preferences.

unlike some I don’t read nefarious intent in wanting to keep Superman a male or whatever.

 

[Warpiglet-7]

In this case I don't think it's because it's a retcon. They're producing a product designed to tug at out heartstrings with pure Columbian grade nostalgia. I personally don't really care because I'm not in the market for pre-painted miniatures. But if I wanted one for nostalgia's sake I might be less likely to buy it because it's a woman instead of a man.

That said, it's a good looking minature. Assuming that's a production copy and not something dolled up by the marketing department. It really does look like the warrior from the painting.

I will likely end up with it even if just from a booster. But my point is that Wizkids is clearly making a change. A lot of folks are saying I knew it was a woman all along…maybe some did

I am just saying all signs—-including what wizkids is saying—-suggests it was pretty widely assumed to be a man and surprise! It’s a woman now.

I can’t prove 99% of gamers thought it was a male…but I believe they did, wizkids knew that and they made a change.

Why not accept that and then like it or don’t?

 

[bedir than]

If Elmore wanted to make the figure obviously male he probably would have. But he didn't.
So I'm rather confused by his statements.
It's a very blank slate image that the vast majority thought was male because the people saw themselves in it and at the time those people were almost always male.

 

[JDR]

Yes, it's only randomized; but maybe an unpainted version will eventually be available? I haven't figured out how they decide what gets an unpainted release.

They haven't promised to release the 1983 Basic Red Box Dragon, but they are releasing a mini of Sutherland's 1977 Holmes Basic Dragon - and it's a straightforward non-randomized $30 purchase:

I wasn't planning on buying any of these minis but If I did I would get the Holmes Blue Book Dragon as this was my first D&D exposure and purchase.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

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

Mod Note:

TBH, I can’t tell if this is a joke or not. If it is, you need to read the room. If not, ignore this.

 

[Clint_L]

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."




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:


But Elmore's statement is Exhibit B.

Exhibit A is the painting itself.

It is quite straightforward why this:
View attachment 362578

Disproves all of this:



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)
View attachment 362579View attachment 362580

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:


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

I find it absolutely adorable that you use diagrams to prove your point.

 

[Autumnal]

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.

Except for the Oxfordians, who want to make sure Shakespeare knows they’re into him.

Edited to add: Also, a different angle on the thread title:

 

[Dire Bare]

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.

That, and when the author in question . . . or painter, in this case . . . clarified his thoughts that folks can interpret his art anyway they like.

 

[PCD]

da Vinci's 'The Last Supper': is that the Apostle John or Mary Magdalene? I doubt da Vinci would object to anyone's opinion either way. He'd probably welcome the debate.