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.

 

[rgard]

Brand new account whose first action is to call people names? You won't be posting in this thread again.

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

 

[rgard]

It's a unicorn with a skin condition.

Or a dragon who acquired the unicorn template.

 

[The Sigil]

I'm sure there will be some that want to jump on this take, but in the spirit of "you are entitled to your own opinions, but you aren't entitled to your own facts" I will just throw the following out there:

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.

2. My opinion: 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.

5. Does the WizKids figurine matter to me? No. Will I continue thinking of the character depicted in the painting as male? Yes (both on the strength of my own assumed context over the past 40 years or so and on Elmore's assertion that the character he was painting was male in his head). Does it diminish my enjoyment of the piece if someone else thinks of the character as female? Not really.

All of this is to say:

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").

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

I cannot prove the intent of WizKids, but it seems to me that their choice to gender the miniature as female is a cynical attempt to use subversion of expectations to generate "buzz" around their miniature and improve sales. In other words, I think it is a calculated attempt to rankle the "grognards" in the RPG community but not out of a genuine desire to challenge expectations in order to enlighten people, improve representation of traditionally underrepresented groups in the hobby, etc. ... I think the move was done as a calculated attempt to annoy in order to effect a cynical cash grab, and as such, I find it distasteful.

If the goal was to promote the visibility of female characters while celebrating the game's heritage and proving "women have been in D&D all along" I would much rather have seen them create a new rendition of the Moldvay B/X icon Morgan Ironwolf (perhaps with a breast reduction). This would have sparked all the feelings of nostalgia without cynically attempting to touch a nerve of annoyance.

Now, my opinions here may be wrong-headed or bigoted, but they're mine and I'm trying to be honest about them and how I feel about this.

As I said, I was a little annoyed when this came to my attention because it did not match my understanding of the original piece. But that feeling lasted maybe 5 minutes (maybe a little longer as it took a little longer to write this post) but then it's time to move on. This doesn't affect my life, game, or appreciation of the piece much one way or the other.

Most posts on this (both sides, including my post here) will probably involve some variation of

and should be taken about as seriously as the above meme suggests.

 

[Misanthrope Prime]

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

Would

 

[The Sigil]

Come to think of it, I'm now wondering if the thread sub-title is factually incorrect ("A WizKids miniature reveals the iconic character's face for the first time").

Someone mentioned it upthread, but didn't Super7 already release a mini that depicts the iconic character's face? So wouldn't WizKids' be a reveal for the SECOND time?

If anyone cares, this version actually bothers my preconceived expectations as to the character's face just as much as the "female" version from WizKids - the B&W illustration in the Basic rules I linked in my previous post didn't have a goatee, for example!

 

[Some Dude]

ISTG WizKids should follow this up with a mini of the "classic" Morgan Ironwolf, but with a "bulge." That would be some top-tier trolling. I get high blood pressure just thinking about all of the salt that would generate.

 

[Some Dude]

I would much rather have seen them create a new rendition of the Moldvay B/X icon Morgan Ironwolf (perhaps with a breast reduction)

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

 

[TiQuinn]

I cannot prove the intent of WizKids, but it seems to me that their choice to gender the miniature as female is a cynical attempt to use subversion of expectations to generate "buzz" around their miniature and improve sales. In other words, I think it is a calculated attempt to rankle the "grognards" in the RPG community but not out of a genuine desire to challenge expectations in order to enlighten people, improve representation of traditionally underrepresented groups in the hobby, etc. ... I think the move was done as a calculated attempt to annoy in order to effect a cynical cash grab, and as such, I find it distasteful.

Why do you think a business that wants to sell a product deliberately sets out to antagonize a subset of their customers?

Like, does that pass a basic logic test in any way?

You’re willing to call this a tempest in a teacup but in the same post you’re willing to ascribe a negative intentions to the company, who by the way, never said this was a mystery to begin with.

 

[Warpiglet-7]

Why do you think a business that wants to sell a product deliberately sets out to antagonize a subset of their customers?

Like, does that pass a basic logic test in any way?

You’re willing to call this a tempest in a teacup but in the same post you’re willing to ascribe a negative intentions to the company, who by the way, never said this was a mystery to begin with.

Businesses miscalculate frequently and please one segment at the expense of another.

However, I too seriously doubt they were rubbing their hands together plotting to infuriate graying neckbeards.

I do think they thought this was subeversive and cute.

How individual consumers react to it will vary of course. I personally am not a fan but have a lot of upcoming minis including ones in that set in my wishlist. So how mad am I really?

 

[Jahydin]

Leave it to WotC to turn a perfectly fun, one-off, "hehe" alternative take into a full-blown delusional retcon.

All they had to do was make a model of the actual character along with the alternative and this would be a complete non-issue. Would have been a fun and inclusive way of tying the two fanbases together IMO.