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.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I used to be a daily visitor to ENWorld. In the last few years, I’ve found I visit less and less. Now, I pop back in maybe every 6 months. Why? Because I got too irritated by Morrus and his mods slamming anyone who might dare question the overt, progressive, woke agenda that most RPG publishers have adopted.

I see nothing has changed.

See you in 6 months.

Cheers

Mod Note:

Or not. Goodbye.

 

[Morrus]

I used to be a daily visitor to ENWorld. In the last few years, I’ve found I visit less and less. Now, I pop back in maybe every 6 months. Why? Because I got too irritated by Morrus and his mods slamming anyone who might dare question the overt, progressive, woke agenda that most RPG publishers have adopted.

I see nothing has changed.

See you in 6 months.

Cheers

Read the rules .You won’t be posting in this thread again.

To be clear: if you are going to try to use my forum to rant about “woke agendas” you are in violation of the rules you agreed to. If you can’t be trusted to do the thing you agreed to do, your invitation to this forum is revoked. You’re a guest. Behave like it or leave. I hope that’s clear.

 

[Morrus]

Let me be really ******* clear. If you try to use my forum as a platform to rant about ‘woke agendas’ you are leaving through the nearest window. Read the rules. You agreed to them. They are clear. If you can’t be trusted to do the thing you promised to do, you’re not a person of character, you’re untrustworthy, and not welcome here. This is my last warning. The next person I see whining about ‘woke agendas’ is leaving permanently. Take that **** to whatever of the many holes in the corners of the internet will validate your obnoxious, untrustworthy ass. That is all.

 

[Umbran]

But to say that equality ought to feel like oppression?

Nobody here said it ought to.

Literally nobody. Not that newfangled figuratively-literally, either. Literally-literally. Not a soul suggested it. It is a bugaboo you are introducing.

We don't need such phantoms here.

Literally nobody is saying equality ought to feel like oppression. Rather that’s how some privileged folk act like they feel.

I'll even allow that they genuinely read what they feel as oppression. Unfortunately, feelings alone are a very poor guide, and they are simply incorrect.

 

[Umbran]

Mod Note:

And, in case anyone needs it said - I am right there with Danny and Morrus.

If you tell us we are pushing a "woke agenda", you are telling us that we are at least trying to make our own little space here just a little bit more just than the world around us. And, you are telling us that you have a problem with us doing so.

We don't need folks who want to perpetuate crappiness in the world, and will be more than happy to show you the door.

 

[Jaeger]

And I completely reject your prescriptive premise. Because it’s simply not true.

You can repeat it over and over again, and I can repeat myself over and over again.

Fun this, isn’t it?

Except that my premise is not prescriptive; It is not based on some long standing custom or general consensus.

It is that of the objective truth. Factually verified by the artist himself:

"I recently was asked a question about the Ancient Red painting I did for the cover of the Red Box edition.
"Did you paint a male or female?"
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.

And fun is not quite the word I would use here...

It is absolutely hilarious watching people jump through rhetorical hoops trying to convince others that something everyone else, including the original artist knows to be true, is not.

 

[CleverNickName]

@Jaeger your argument boils down to "the artist intended it, so it's true" and that's not how artistic expression works.

There is no singular, "true" interpretation of a work of art. Art is, and will always be, subjective to the person examining it regardless of the artist's intent. You are looking at a painting, not a scientific instrument.

One person can agree with the artist's intent, and another can disagree, and both are going to be equally valid. That's the difference between Art and Science.

 

[Morrus]

Except that my premise is not prescriptive; It is not based on some long standing custom or general consensus.

There's no such thing. Show me this "long standing custom or general consensus" (by which I mean predating this thread).

It is that of the objective truth. Factually verified by the artist himself:

"I recently was asked a question about the Ancient Red painting I did for the cover of the Red Box edition.
"Did you paint a male or female?"
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.

And fun is not quite the word I would use here...

It is absolutely hilarious watching people jump through rhetorical hoops trying to convince others that something everyone else, including the original artist knows to be true, is not.

You're repeating yourself. Repeating something over and over again when somebody disagrees with it doesn't make you correct, it just makes you tedious. You're not answering anything I've said or any questions I've asked you.

It is absolutely hilarious watching people jump through rhetorical hoops trying to convince others that something everyone else, including the original artist knows to be true, is not.

Well, I'm glad you're enjoying yourself. But I'm done with you; sorry. This is not a conversation, it's a soapbox. I won't be responding further to you.

 

[Gradine]

"objective truth" "artist"

 

[MNblockhead]

I'm in agreement with most have responded with. Understand there's probably a lot of hateful things being spewed online, but just because I'm not thrilled with this decision doesn't mean I'm on "team terrible".

Inclusivity is important to me; I just don't like the way WotC goes about it. It feels like it comes from a place of resentment rather than love. The news release for this miniature is just another example of it.

Which is fine. More money for Paizo and the OSR.

Fair enough. If the game doesn't capture your interest, or turns you off for any reason, even if over something as minor as a miniature. I mean, I'm still not over dragonborn being core species. But I can flip past those pages and still enjoy the game. I guess I just never understood the how upset people get over these things. I mean OD&D, AD&D, and many retroclones are out there. Or you can take the 5e rules and use what you like and ignore the rest.

I went from 1991 to 2014 without playing any TTRPGs. When I got back into gaming I was very pleased to find how accessible and diverse the hobby had become, so it is weird to see folks getting worked up over such minor things. It is like being at a massive all-you-can-eat pizza buffet and having some guy shouting about someone putting pineapple on one of the pizzas. "Yeah, but like there are these 50 other varieties, including all the classics from a plain New York slice to a meat-lovers Chicago deep dish." And the same guy keeps yelling about "but they put PINEAPPLE on THAT pizza. Now I can't enjoy that pizza. How dare they!"

I don't think you need to even get into politics and culture war issues. It is just weird to me for people to get so fixated on one miniature, or one short adventure in one book.

So, yes. Support Paizo if they put out products you enjoy more than WotC D&D. Game on!