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.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Funny how distant and inconsequential it seems, twenty years in the rearview mirror.

It may also be the most wrong any would-be gatekeepers have ever been. Only a handful of people would seriously say the original Battlestar Galactica is the better version of the story or that the original Starbuck is a better character.

 

[Nathaniel Lee]

I think Starbuck in the reimagined Galactica is a great example of when it's nonsensical to get outraged about changing an arguably significant aspect of a character's identity. I think another example of silly outrage is all the hate that the Lord of the Rings television series got from some quarters about the "audacity" of including non-"white" elves. Reinterpretations, updates, changes in lore (e.g. adding females to the previously "all male" unit in Warhammer 40k), etc. are all things that should happen to improve the sorry state of representation that's prevalent through much of our entertainment.

I don't think that's exactly an analog to this situation, though. This set hasn't been promoted as a "reinterpretation" of the classic NPCs and monsters. It's apparent that they're banking on the nostalgia factor, the 50th anniversary, etc. to get people to buy into this set, and they've strongly implied, if not necessarily outright said, that the "classic" miniatures in the set are the physical representations of all those iconic pieces of art. Even if they didn't literally say "this miniature is that very exact character on the red box cover," that's how many people are going to understand it. Not a reinterpretation or reimagination, but that character, which we know from Elmore's statement (if he's to be believed) was commissioned with the intent of being a man and that he created as a man.

Individuals of course can have interpreted that character any way they want, and there was a degree of intentional ambiguity there, but we know what Elmore's intent was, we know what Gygax's request was, and I don't think it's too much of a stretch to state that the overwhelming majority of people who viewed that artwork at the time interpreted it as a man (due to prevalent stereotypes, biases, etc., yes, but nonetheless that was the most likely interpretation of the audience in that era).

Personally, I think that a better analog for Starbuck, the elves, etc. would be the modern versions of classic modules, which are either reimaginations of the originals or are homages that are heavily influenced by them, but aren't supposed to be and don't purport to be the exact same adventure, despite the same title.

This appears to be the very first time that the character has been put into a physical statue/miniature. It's part of a set trying to take advantage of people's nostalgia, celebrating the 50th anniversary of the original game, included alongside tons of other miniatures that overwhelmingly seem to be leaning on accuracy to the classic artwork. It just seems like an odd choice, given (as others have brought up) so many other iconic female characters through the earlier history of the game, to decide to reinterpret this particular one.

But, hey, it's Wizard's IP, and obviously they can ultimately do whatever they want.

I'm definitely in the camp of this being not nearly as big a deal as some might make it out to be. I certainly understand Elmore's position on it. I certainly understand other's harsh positions on it. The decision doesn't make me hate the set or even the miniature. I'm still buying the minis when they come out, and honestly it's the first set in a pretty long time where I felt motivated to actually buy a brick.

 

[billd91]

Only a handful of people would seriously say the original Battlestar Galactica is the better version of the story or that the original Starbuck is a better character.

Oh, I don't think it would be just a handful and, as long as they're not just being bent out of shape about Starbuck being a woman, I think it's a valid choice. Fact is, the two shows are pretty different. The original show is much simpler the way it contrasts the refugee fleet and the Cylons while the latter gets far grimier and psychological (which some might find a bit triggering or uncomfortable and hard to watch). I can see someone preferring the well-meaning, womanizing, and kind of hapless gambler vs the self-sabotaging, chaos agent who might eventually become a ghost/angel/pseudo-supernatural creature.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

How would everyone feel if the warrior had turned out to be a zeetvah?

 

[Cadence]

How would everyone feel if the warrior had turned out to be a zeetvah?

Given that it is supposed to appear to be painted plastic, what if all of the mini-figs were actually tiny mimics?

 

[PCD]

I always thought the focus of the picture was the Dragon. It seemed small, young and had a huge treasure pile.

Today's politics haven't changed my mind.

 

[Vincent55]

this was settled by the original artist and also a action figure was also made that stated male warrior.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

I always thought the focus of the picture was the Dragon. It seemed small, young and had a huge treasure pile.

NEPO BABY DRAGON! ATTACK!

 

[rgard]

Has anyone done the Aerosmith "Dude looks like a lady" joke yet?

No sign of the Kinks' Lola either.

 

[rgard]

The really important issue here is another one. The original picture is nothing short of deceptive advertising. It leads the potential buyers to believe that a level 1-3 fighter, alone, can take a red dragon...

And many tried.