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.

 

[occam]

I am not outraged at all about swapping the gender. I just thought the article in question was silly, because people got that it was a guy at the time. That is all I have been saying the whole time I have been on the thread

Sure, but specifically you appeared to blame, not ComicBook.com, but WizKids:

Whether people were stereotyping or jumping to conclusions, the issue I took with what wiz kids did, wasn't them making the change, it was them acting like there was widespread mystery over what sex the character was. And all I said in respect to that was I think it was rather silly.

...and people posting on this thread:

I responded to people who posted that they thought the character was a woman. I am sure some people did. The issue I was taking was them acting like this was a big mystery or debate, when it was never a topic you heard anyone talk about (and everyone seemed to be in agreement it was a male fighter on the cover).

If "them" was actually meant to specify someone other than the direct antecedents in your postings, you should consider being more careful with pronouns.

 

[billd91]

Oh, I don't think it would be just a handful and, as long as they're 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.

Sorry, that should be “as long as they’re NOT just being bent out of shape…”

Typing too fast on Tapatalk…

Edit: oh, I found a way to edit my post in Tapatalk, so situation fixed. Nothing to see here.

 

[Zarithar]

I'm just kind of amazed this warranted 34 pages of comments. The Paladin in Hell mini (s) look awesome by the way... I may have to shell out some $$$ for that.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

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...

The painting doesn't suggest that the warrior wins.

 

[Celestian]

Sweet april fools joke.

 

[teitan]

Nothing you just said has anything to do with this topic. If you want to discuss the OGL, find another thread (like the currently active thread about that OGL issue, which isn't this thread). They have an active, actually profitable licensing agreement with WizKids, not a passive agreement like the OGL which sees no direct monies. Nothing about this topic relates to what you're mentioning.

We don't know if Wizards exercised approval authority over making this figure female rather than male. Anything else is speculation.

Has everything to do with it but what you don’t have a right to is to be rude to me and talk down to me telling me what to do. In your self righteousness you seem to have forgotten where WOTC referred to the rules as their IP and how they were just protecting their IP with the “new” OGL. How they asserted they owned things in the public domain as IP etc etc etc. that screams a company with tight approvals. We already know from past products that WOtC approves things that come through, they didn’t trust Weis & Hickman to produce Dragonlance after DECADES? We know their novels have been going through approval and review. Do a search for the OGL 1.1 and it’s all discussions of Intellectual Property and WOtC trying to control their IP.

Nothing whatsoever gives you a right to be rude to me. Nothing. But that’s simple to fix. I will no longer respond to anything you have to say even if we have always gotten along on here before. Toodles

 

[Umbran]

Mod note:
Some folks seem to be getting a bit agitated in here.

Please, everyone, keep your cool. Even if you feel others are being rude... especially if you feel others are being rude. You are always responsible for your own behavior, so the other guy being rude won't be a defense if you go over the line.

 

[MNblockhead]

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...

The back of the box should have been the bloody remains of the warrior in the forground with the dragon curled contentedly around its treasure hoard.

 

[MNblockhead]

I would let that woman do things to me that were so debauched they're gonna have to add like a whole five or six layers to the hells

I expect that if she heard you say that you would experience the layers of hell before the debauchery.

 

[MGibster]

I kept hearing about WotC making some old character who was a man into a woman but I didn't know what anyone was talking about until this thread. I'm not really outraged because I'm not in the market for pre-painted miniatures. If I was going to purchase it for nostalgia, I probably wouldn't want this one because that dude has always been a dude in my mind. If it's not a dude then the nostalgia factor is gone. But like I said, I'm not in the market for pre-painted miniatures and even if I was this isn't worth getting upset about.

As a miniature painter, I like having a variety of subjects to paint. I recently purchased a barbarian woman from Reaper mini and I'm sure I'll get to painting it real soon. (Looks at all his unpainted minis.) Real soon.

I have to say that it's pretty obvious Elmore's original art was a man. If anyone thought otherwise, it would have been used as an example of sexist art. See how this woman warrior has her whole leg exposed?