• The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!

D&D General D&D Red Box: Who Is The Warrior?

A WizKids miniature reveals the iconic character's face for the first time.

Screenshot 2024-05-07 at 22.27.52.png


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.

Screenshot 2024-05-07 at 22.31.00.png

paladininhell.jpg

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.


redboxwarriormini.png




s-l1600.jpg

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.
 

log in or register to remove this ad


log in or register to remove this ad

Good grief. Why?

If you disagree that is fair, but is this such an outrageous position, that the author's intended purpose is more valid than my subjective interpretation? I am not saying this is always the case. An author could fail spectacularly. But generally I would say, I am inclined to put more stock in the author of a works opinion than someone who isn't the author. To be clear I don't think that has a whole lot of bearing on the gender of D&D figurines (I don't think an author's intent being more significant than my subjective interpretation, means people can't re-imagine an author's work). But just generally on the death of the author topic, I find I have trouble with this idea. That might be my bias as an old history student, where intent of a text was quite important. Or it just be how I tend to engage text (I want to genuinely understand what the author is trying to convey and achieve).
 

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
Good grief. Why?
Because an author's creation automatically has greater validity than anything anyone else can come up with. Mary Shelly created Frankenstein. She created the appearance, creation process, mental and physical prowess, etc. No one can rationally look at her Frankenstein and say, "That's not Frankenstein." They can dislike it, but they can't refute it. If you create a different Frankenstein, yours is doubtable in a way that hers never can be.

I can say that it doesn't feel like Frankenstein(if it's close) or flat out isn't Frankenstein if it deviates from the mold she created by too great of a degree. Any Frankenstein you create that differs from hers is less valid. That's not the same as saying invalid, but it will definitely be less valid.
 


Clint_L

Legend
I do think art can be very subjective, but this idea never really sat well with me when I was a student. Yes, we can all take different things from a book. But I feel like Mary Shelley's interpretation of Frankenstein does have more validity than my own.
Well, Frankenstein is a text that I know very well. I've taught it many times. And I have 200 more years of context to bring to it than Shelley did. For example, I supervised an essay exploring it as an important precursor to Gibson's Neuromancer.

Frankenstein
today has meanings that Shelley couldn't have imagined. I think her own reflections on it are fascinating but incredibly limited, partly by historical necessity, and partly by her personal context and inclinations.

Edit: Does that make my interpretations more valid? No, I don't think "valid" is a meaningful term when it comes to interpreting art. It's not like we're doing maths.

Edit 2: Clarification: "valid" is a meaningful term, but every interpretation of art is valid. That doesn't mean they are all equally good; that depends on the quality of your argument. IMO, interpreting this particular art as a woman is much more interesting than another pseudo-Conan, so I think it is both a valid and good interpretation.
 
Last edited:

Hussar

Legend
Because an author's creation automatically has greater validity than anything anyone else can come up with. Mary Shelly created Frankenstein. She created the appearance, creation process, mental and physical prowess, etc. No one can rationally look at her Frankenstein and say, "That's not Frankenstein." They can dislike it, but they can't refute it. If you create a different Frankenstein, yours is doubtable in a way that hers never can be.

I can say that it doesn't feel like Frankenstein(if it's close) or flat out isn't Frankenstein if it deviates from the mold she created by too great of a degree. Any Frankenstein you create that differs from hers is less valid. That's not the same as saying invalid, but it will definitely be less valid.
Really? She created the appearance of the Monster? All aspects of the Monster were 100% original and not building upon any earlier works whatsoever? The story of Frankenstein is 100% original?

Ovid might be rather surprised to hear that. Then again, I suppose you think that Mrs. Shelly was slapping him in the face by changing the gender of the creation?

How many versions of Frankenstein have there been in the past hundred or so years? Between TV, movies, novels, and various other places? I dunno either, but, I'm going to say, "a LOT". And every single one of them is equally valid to the Mary Shelly version.

So, I guess you refuse to watch any version of Frankenstein? As it's obviously inferior? You eschew any novel, movie, or any other artistic endevour based upon Mrs. Shelly's work? No? You watch the movies? You read the books? You see the comedies, dramas, and various other versions, and enjoy some and don't enjoy others?

Yeah, I thought so.
 


EzekielRaiden

Follower of the Way
Wait, this means I can say "Your mom!" and now it's actually possible that, for some adventurer out there in the multiverse, that's actually true!

This is great news.
 

Dannyalcatraz

Schmoderator
Staff member
Supporter
These days that is especially easy to do with the volume of music. I think music is also more prone to it (avoiding IP issues in books is a lot easier than songs IMO). George Harrison got writers block worrying about it so much after it happened to him
Oh yeah. I can point to (non-plagiarized) similarities between compositions by Coldplay & The Pixies, The Beatles & Ritchie Valens, John Legend & Tori Kelly, and many more.
 

Stormonu

Legend
Not too long ago HeroQuest rereleased with resculpted figures. If you got the KS/Pulse version, you got male/female versions of the heroes* (and some of the monsters too). I liked that, thought it was a great idea. This, I feel was handled poorly - probably wouldn’t have hurt to do male/female versions for the set. Perhaps better would have been to include the previously unpublished other character in the original rough, and keep the original warrior.

* as I recall, the elf in the retail version is gender-swapped. I think this may have been what started them considering the alt versions for all.
 

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top