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.

 

[MNblockhead]

The ComicBooks article headline was "Wizkids Answers Dungeons and Dragons Mystery in 50th Anniversary Set" and the article went on to say



This eventually prompted Larry Elmore to issue a statement on facebook clarifying the character had been a man

They obviously made it a woman because few people (not saying "none") would have interpreted the character in that piece of art as a woman. It was clearly means to subvert those expectations and give a moment of surprise, like when an armored and helmeted protagonist removes the helmet and you learn that the hero was a woman.

They also knew that it would lead to a lot of, uh, "conversation" and build buzz for a miniature that would otherwise would not have drawn much attention, because only a few older players or D&D history geeks would be interested or excited about this. Upsetting a small number of older fans is a good trade-off for better sales.

As an older player who started with Red Box D&D my reaction was "huh, okay." Sometimes I've gotten a little miffed by complete reimaginings of well fleshed out characters from novels and movies ("miffed" meaning, I shrug my shoulders and don't buy/read/watch the book/show/movie). But I just can't see how someone could be so attached to one-off depiction of a warrior that you only see from the back.

I feel like I should start a thread ranting about orcs not having porcine faces, but I think I missed the boat on that one.

 

[MNblockhead]

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

Helps that the reimagined Starbuck was awesome. Probably also helped that I didn't remember much of the original show and wasn't attached to the original characters and story. For those that were, I can at least see where they are coming from, even if I don't get being so invested as to be outraged. But this is not at all the same thing, or at least not nearly on the same level.

Anyway, like most of the posts in this thread, I am not repeating myself. Rage on, folks.

 

[MNblockhead]

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.

That was a thing? Of course it was. I'm glad this is the only fandom new and discussion site a participate in. For most shows, I can't just watch them, and enjoy them or not, without the pollution of culture-war drama and over analysis of "canon."

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.

A distinction without a difference as far as I'm concerned. Getting worked up because a miniature of character in a painting, that you only see from the back, and which is not part of any lore or canon, is strange to me.

 

[MNblockhead]

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.

 

[MNblockhead]

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?

Yeah, where's all the outrage over all the art showing of the male warriors' sweaty thews! ;-)

 

[MNblockhead]

Welp when someone decides your art is something it isn't, an argument needs to be had.

No. It really doesn't. I'm happy to read/hear an artists original interpretation. I enjoyed reading Elmore giving some background on that painting, especially in his subsequent, edited post. But arguing about it is not going to accomplish anything positive.

 

[JDR]

I started playing D&D way before Red Box and had long moved on to AD&D before 1983. No one in my gaming circle even bought the Red Box, so the nostalgia thing for me was never really there. It is an iconic piece though and I am very familiar with Larry Elmore's style and the way he painted males/females back then, so I always thought of the Fighter on the box as male. With the hair and horned helmet it kind of spoke of a Conan-type character to me. As a few others here have said what they should do is have both male and female versions.

 

[Hussar]

/edit

Sorry. Nope. My bad.

 

[Guest 7045697]

This is BS and everyone knows it. There was never any question. DnD keeps on killing its own brand.

 

[Guest 7045697]

I must say Larry seems a bit out of touch and sexist in that reply. A bit disappointing.

EDIT: glad to hear Larry clarified his comments.

You are the problem. The very problem this hobby is facing.