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.

 

[Willie the Duck]

1. The original artist (Elmore) stated that the fighter depicted in the piece was male. Since the painting is not a photograph, but is rather a rendition of something Elmore held in his imagination, that should be the end of the discussion as to whether or not the figure in the painting is male or female. You create it, your definition is objectively correct.

Because the image originated in one person's head, that person is the final authority in what the image depcits (note this is different "is intended to depict").

That is a reasonable position to take, support, and argue for, but hardly a universally agreed-upon truism (and the 'objectively' adjective certainly is up for debate). I'm sure every course on analysis and critique has days dedicated to the subject alone (along with defined jargon and delightful anecdotes about Bradbury arguing with a UCLA or Cal Fullerton class about the meaning of Fahrenheit 451).

2. My opinion:

Spoiler: spoilered for size

I always felt that the context around the piece was the Mentzger Basic set itself, specifically the "Introductory Solo Adventure" which was illustrated in Black & White, also by Elmore. To wit, in my head, we already HAD front views of the fighter in question (yes, I realize this view has a non-horned helmet, lower-half clothing doesn't match, etc. I didn't say I was correct that they're the same person, just that I always assumed they were the same person). For example:

To my eyes, the fighter depicted from this angle looks male (going mostly on pectoral shape here; clearly facial hair would have read more "male"). Again, this is my opinion of the piece and on its context and is NOT an indisputable fact.

3. However, it's also important to note that the Introductory text uses the second-person pronoun "you" rather than a third-person "he" or "she" so there is nothing in the text itself that would lend credence to my opinion expressed in point #2 above.

4. I am bothered by the WizKids figurine not because it challenges my pre-conceived expectations about the character's gender, but rather because it challenges my pre-conceived expectations about the character's appearance from the front since it doesn't match the interior illustrations from the BECMI guide (the WizKids figure is bustier than the illustration above). I readily admit my pre-conceived expectations include gendering the character as "male" but also admit that until Elmore weighed in, I had based this on ideas not explicitly in the painting itself.

I can't unlearn what I'd heard, but much later I read Frank Mentzer say that Aleena was based off his girlfriend at the time. That's always pointed me to the idea that the intro vignette is Mentzer's tale, but the rest of the art in the book is more general D&D. For that arbitrary reason, I don't match the figure on the front of the box with the one in the choose-your-own-adventure style intro. No idea how I saw things back in the day.

This is a tempest in a teacup. Nobody needs to get too worked up about this.

Definitely.

 

[Umbran]

Probably a back up account for somebody who was already posting here.

Mod Note:
1) If you just made the account, and use it to act out, it isn't a "backup".

2) When Morrus or the moderators port in red text like this, it is NOT an invitation to engage in discussion. If you have a comment about such a moderation post that you feel is important, please put it in a private message to the moderators. If your comment isn't that important, please don't reply to the moderation post. Thanks.

 

[TheGlen]

Whoa, there, let's not be too hasty...

The chest wouldn't be the problem. Try sculpting a miniature with that coif and have it not fall over. That is the most epic '80s hair ever created in the history of mankind

 

[Anon Adderlan]

All art is interpretive. It's one of its defining traits. And I can even see how the figure in question might be interpreted as a woman. But given the nature of the product this change strikes me as a deliberate attempt to revise history, especially if the ones responsible start claiming it's always been so in some official capacity. And it isn't the folks critical of this change who are doubling down on wishing organ failure on others, dismissing women weighing in on how they're represented, or claiming gender is defined by what's between your legs.

Whether or not Elmore's intent was for the character to be a man, it seems that officially she's a woman.

Not sure why you'd prioritize the claims of a corporation over the original artist, but OK.

At this very minute, certain self-described "influencers" are frothing in front of their webcams and frantically uploading their hawt take to YouTube, trying to get a slice of that same pie. And sadly, it'll work.

One can only wonder why #WizKids enables this sort of thing.

What I find amusing, more than male/female, is his/her armour has grown longer

Because somethingsomething male gaze somethingsomething.

I mean, if you decide the faceless billion dollar corporation gets to decide artistic intent rather than the artist who drew the damn thing, sure.

Still boggles me that anyone gives those institutions that power, especially in a hobby like this.

Art is interpretive, not iconic. This is not a religious Icon.

Art is also iconic, the image in question is an icon, and the sculpt in question is from a set called 'icons of the realms'.

Conception that "this body type means male, that means female" is exactly stereotyping. That we all did it merely means we share the stereotype, not that it didn't exist.

And we still do, given how #WizKids felt the only thing they needed to do to 'purposefully and clearly' present the character as a woman was to add boobs. But please do tell how we're supposed to convey the concept of feminine/masculine without a shared cultural lexicon.

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

Are we still allowed to?

For a set that banking on nostalgia, it seems like an odd play.

Indeed.

My position is that, because of the nature of this particular project, they should have respected the vision of the original artist in this specific case.

Agreed.

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.

Which had nothing to do with Starbuck's gender.

When you learn about art, such as taking an Art History class in college, the very first thing you do is try to understand the painting's context - that is both studying the artist and the time in which it was made.

So what can we glean from this sculpt given the artist and time in which it was made?

 

[CleverNickName]

One can only wonder why #WizKids enables this sort of thing.

To be clear:
I'm not blaming WizKids for anything; it's abundantly clear why they interpreted this piece of art the way they did. It's a great idea, and I hope they make buckets of money so they can do more like it. It raises the profile of Elmore's art, and my favorite boxed set. (Maybe Bargle can be next?)

But I'll certainly blame reactionary outrage-farmers on YouTube (and here) for trying to turn this into some kind of fight. There's nothing to argue about, but good luck telling them that.

 

[billd91]

So what can we glean from this sculpt given the artist and time in which it was made?

We can glean that they made a decision to make a figure easier to identify with for a segment of the population notoriously under-served when the original image was made. That underscores the fact that companies like Wizards and WizKids are actively marketing their products with broader inclusivity in mind than 40 years ago.

 

[Charles Lowry]

Likely planned faux outrage that Wizkids purposefully wanted to garner attention. I can't imagine that if the gender was really in question, Wizkids simply didn't think to ask the creator of the art piece. It doesn't appear Larry Elmore would be resistant to answer a question which would have been fairly mundane.

 

[Konrad13]

While I think the mini looks fine, I feel that if they wanted an iconic female old school character to turn into a mini for the line I would have done Aleena. As it is this decision, while honestly rather non-controversial to me personally, seems like all it will do is sadly rile up too many people and if the blowback is bad enough they may decide not to release old art as minis again. Hope this blows over quickly.

 

[Raiztt]

Oh, is this what we're doing this week?

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

While I think the mini looks fine, I feel that if they wanted an iconic female old school character to turn into a mini for the line I would have done Aleena.

As has been pointed out, the "iconic female" characters from the era are designed for the horny adolescent hetero boy audience. (Where did all of the hair product come from in Karameikos?)

This warrior is a different sort of character, a closer analogue to Brienne of Tarth, a character type absolutely not present in TSR D&D art, but a type that definitely has an audience in 2024. (Brienne, in fact, is probably one of the most popular characters in Game of Thrones/ASoI&F.)