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.

 

[Von Ether]

I'm in the camp that having two figures for the two interpretations would have been the smarter, more profitable tactic. Heck, if they sold the figures as bookends for my gaming shelf, I'd be in.

Pure speculation on my part, this feels like a publicity stunt to hype the set.

"one of 10 secret rare miniatures"

Maybe one of the other 10 IS the male version? For a set that banking on nostalgia, it seems like an odd play.

 

[Lakesidefantasy]

After seeing what is in the rest of these mystery boxes from the "Realms: 50th Anniversary" sets, I think these figures are really neat.

However, if a single figure from this set is this controversial to you, or your friends, then voice your opinion with your wallet by not purchasing anything if you don't like what a company is doing, as it is the most direct way to get any company to listen to what you the fans want.

Yes, I agree; or I want to agree. I mean, I'm offended by the miniature but I wasn't going to buy it anyway.* (Maybe I could buy it then return it.) I could also try and convince people who were going to buy it to not buy it. So please don't buy it.

However, it sometimes seems like my offense fuels opposition.** When I'm offended by something like this my community doesn't support me, it attacks me.

Sometimes the attack just comes out of the blue, a big slap in the face. Uncalled for to be sure and surprising, but not entirely unexpected.

* Does this mean I have no right to be offended? Does the right to be offended only belong to those with power? In this case the people with money to spend on miniatures?
** Why?

 

[Spectral Anomaly]

Has anyone done the Aerosmith "Dude looks like a lady" joke yet?

What's an aerosmith? Do you mean like a fletcher or something?

 

[Some Dude]

Isn't there a sex-change room in Tomb of Horrors?

 

[dave2008]

I mean, I'm offended by the miniature but I wasn't going to buy it anyway.

Why are you offended by this miniature?

 

[Some Dude]

Why are you offended by this miniature?

Not naked enough

 

[Azzy]

Why are you offended by this miniature?

Yeah, that's certainly a reaction.

 

[dbolack]

Good thing I never said that, then.

Not exactly, no.

 

[dbolack]

I do think it is a little silly to pretend there was a mystery around this (it was always clearly a man). If they want to change it and make the character officially a woman, that is fair. But we all knew what sex the character was

More than one person in the thread has mentioned they interpreted the character as a woman. It is fair to extrapolate we didn't all seem to know the same thing.

 

[Dire Bare]

I'm in the camp that having two figures for the two interpretations would have been the smarter, more profitable tactic. Heck, if they sold the figures as bookends for my gaming shelf, I'd be in.

Pure speculation on my part, this feels like a publicity stunt to hype the set.



Maybe one of the other 10 IS the male version? For a set that banking on nostalgia, it seems like an odd play.

Bookends? These are miniatures! How big are your books?

While miniature companies will often create male and female versions of archetypes . . . like "male wizard" and "female wizard" . . . they don't often create male/female versions of the same character. I'm sure it's been done, but it's not common.

And there is no reasonable reason for WizKids to do this here.

The original art depicts a male warrior, but turned away from the viewer. WizKids decided to play on that anonymity and reimagine the character as female. No need for a "classic" male version of the character, the recontextualization is the point.