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.

 

[Bagpuss]

So is over interpreting an obvious metaphor as a literal wish.

I think you meant hyperbole (exaggerated statements or claims not meant to be taken literally) rather than metaphor (a figure of speech that implicitly compares two unrelated things, typically by stating that one thing is another).

If it was a metaphor then you would be saying have a coronary is the same as a death wish.

 

[dmar]

To suddenly tell him his art, that he owns a piece of the rights to, is something wholly different is, and I am not directing this at you, is not what he intended is arrogance. We need to respect the artist even if we develop our own ideas behind an image.

And without any justifiable reason.
I find it quite distasteful.

I mean, if it had come from Elmore himself: "You know, I originally intended it as a man, but it could as well be a woman. And here's my illustration of her from the front. Do you like it?"

But it was done by a third party as a fait accompli, on an existen work of art. Not as an homage or reinterpretation mind you, but to sell stuff.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

What was that obvious metaphor supposed to convey instead? Bear in mind that many users of that forum like myself don't speak English as their first language.

English is my first language, and as a metaphor it reads as “I wish they would die” to me.

 

[michaeljpastor]

I think you meant hyperbole (exaggerated statements or claims not meant to be taken literally) rather than metaphor (a figure of speech that implicitly compares two unrelated things, typically by stating that one thing is another).

If it was a metaphor then you would be saying have a coronary is the same as a death wish.

No, I believe metaphor is correct. Hyperbole too. So it's a hyperbolic metaphor. When I say "my head exploded" when I realized the twist at the end of Sixth Sense, I neither mean that literally nor to that degree.

Did everyone think that "clutching pearls" as it was said earlier was someone literally clutching pearls?

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Did everyone think that "clutching pearls" as it was said earlier was someone literally clutching pearls?

That’s idiom, not metaphor.

 

[michaeljpastor]

That’s idiom, not metaphor.

who cares? it wasn't literal. idiom, metaphor, hyperbole, it's not literal.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

who cares? it wasn't literal. idiom, metaphor, clutching pearls, it's not literal.

Metaphor is worse than literal. A literal coronary is survivable, but metaphorically, it represents death.

 

[Jadeite]

who cares? it wasn't literal. idiom, metaphor, hyperbole, it's not literal.

Than what was it that you were trying to say? Hopefully something that's not "I wish for these people I disagree with to suffer serious and life threatening physical harm".

 

[Warbringer]

I actually think the opposite, some maybe feel the original creator was disrespected by not only not being consulted, not even warned. This product was targeted at old school fans and treating Larry so rudely may cause a backlash with canceled orders.

I mean the dude has done countless women warriors, women mages, maybe women clerics, ect..., I mean they could have done a whole set of minis based on his art (OMGs that would do so well).

They should apologize.

There is even a character explicitly expressing as female in the full framed piece of that art

 

[Warbringer]

This whole "debate" is ridiculous. The bottom line is that the piece of artwork was Larry's creation. He said he drew a male warrior, so it is a male warrior. You are free to imagine that it is a woman, dog, cat, owlbear or whatever you like. But the fact is the warrior depicted is a male. Much like when a musician writes a song and tells you what the meaning of it is. That is what the song actually means. Sure, you can imagine that it means something else. But that does not change the fact of what the song really means. With that being said I have no problem with Wizkids reimagining something. But it is just that, a reimagining of the original. Not what the famous red box warrior actually was.

now I can’t the lyric out get out of my head …” l bet you think this picture’s about you, don’t you, don’t you.”

I get retconning, it has its place, especially if the historical context warrants it, but to claim it’s not retconning is gaslighting.