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.

 

[dbolack]

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.

Except that it cannot be true. It is art of an unidentified, fictional being.

 

[MNblockhead]

I think it is just as likely that the art was snagged by a youngin who didn't know the piece as a suggestion for a female figure when they were collecting pics they thought were suitable for this line as it is they did it for the clicks.

That is, unlikely, but not impossible. We can't know unless they tell us and a non-zero percentage won't believe them anyway.

I think we are basically saying the same thing. The only difference being that I think they put more thought into it than your scenario. But, like you say, it is just conjecture on both our parts.

 

[dbolack]

I think we are basically saying the same thing. The only difference being that I think they put more thought into it than your scenario. But, like you say, it is just conjecture on both our parts.

Oh, I think they likely did too, even if that was the starting point. Mostly it was a counterpoint to the absurdity of "they did it for the clicks" argument with such an abysmal amount of data to draw a conclusion from.

 

[MNblockhead]

Dunno. I’m old and already have so many general-use minis that I won’t consider buying randomized minis packs. But I would buy several of these 50th anniversary chase miniatures, if they are available individually at non-astronomical prices.

I’m particularly interested in buying this one, because I think it is both clever and a potentially useful addition to my collection.

Can anyone advise: Where are good places to buy single after-market minis these days? eBay mostly? Thanks!

It this only available through randomized packs? Now that's something I can almost get upset about--I hate the randomized packs approach. But then I remember I'll be able to just buy it on the secondary market if I really want it. Then I remember I don't buy minis any more. Still, if they come out with a mini of the dragon, I would love to have both pieces recreating the scene from the Red Box on a shelf in my game room.

 

[MNblockhead]

He's not weird. He painted the warrior, had a male in mind, and said so. He explained that if he had had a female in mind, you'd probably recognize it as a female.

I think the "being weird" characterization was in reaction to Elmore's original post where he was calling people crazy. He subsequent edited version was toned down a lot and is quite reasonable.

 

[MNblockhead]

Culture evolves. You can roll with it, or you can shake your fist from the sidelines. I find it much more interesting to accept it and see what happens next.

Hey, some of us shake our fists while rolling with it.

 

[Warpiglet-7]

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.

The fact that this is a story—-at all—-is because of course it was meant to be a man and Wizkids and or WOTC assumed that is how he was perceived.

Of course you are right. Why else would this even be a thing otherwise?!

So they thought it would be fun to subvert expectations. Or generate buzz. Or whatever.

I am not a fan of it myself but I am not outraged by the change. I am mildly annoyed at pretending the Easter bunny hopped by and people going along with it. And also that they chose an iconic character to change. So many other options! But then you don’t get the outr—buzz. I meant buzz…with other characters. This was not a random choice.

As far as female miniatures, I am Most interested in the female dwarf with a maul from this series! She was probably my favorite art from the PHB.

I also went out of my way to repurchase a female ranger from the starter set. I like a good selection of female minis since my daughters and friend often prefer female PCs and just need a range of NPCs. Relatedly, if I pull this one in a random box, I will be happy to include it in my “PC” minis but am under no illusion that was a thing prior to whatever discussion led to the change.

It’s not a big deal. I can use a badass female mini. But please don’t act like this is anything other than an attempt to create buzz by subverting expectations…

Mission accomplished…around these parts anyway.

 

[Riley]

It this only available through randomized packs? Now that's something I can almost get upset about--I hate the randomized packs approach. But then I remember I'll be able to just buy it on the secondary market if I really want it. Then I remember I don't buy minis any more. Still, if they come out with a mini of the dragon, I would love to have both pieces recreating the scene from the Red Box on a shelf in my game room.

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:

This Red Box Warrior vs. the Sutherland Dragon might make a fun mashup!

View attachment 343989

It's Sutherland's Holmes Basic dragon!


View attachment 343988

 

[rgard]

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 $30 release:

This Red Box Warrior vs. the Sutherland Dragon might make a fun mashup!

Yep, I'll buy that mini. Holmes was my introduction to D&D decades ago.

 

[Senior_WotC_Janitor]

James Brian Hellwig