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.

 

[jmartkdr2]

Come to think of it the mini looks more like Aleena’s sister

View attachment 361849

This is the one I actually want a mini of.

 

[jayoungr]

I like a kick-butt sword-wielding woman as much as the next person, and I do commend the makers of the figure for keeping the proportions--you don't see a lot of female figures with that build.

But I wish they'd consulted the original artist and followed his wishes. It seems disrespectful not to do so.

 

[Omand]

To add context to this discussion, Elmore created a follow up painting to the Red Box cover as one of the adds to his Kickstarter campaigns (I think). I have a copy of the print. It is meant to be the same warrior at the end of his career, rather than the start as the Red Box illustrates:

Larry Elmore · Circle Of Death

Cheers

 

[Clint_L]

I actually think the opposite, some maybe feel the original creator was disrespected by not only not being consulted, not even warned. This product was targeted at old school fans and treating Larry so rudely may cause a backlash with canceled orders.

I mean the dude has done countless women warriors, women mages, maybe women clerics, ect..., I mean they could have done a whole set of minis based on his art (OMGs that would do so well).

They should apologize.

You have to be kidding? Warned that, what, the back of a warrior that he painted and sold inspired a new piece of art that was interpreted as a [GASP] woman?

Should they have warned him if it was being done as a man? Or non-binary? Or a half-elf? Or a non-binary half-elf? What, exactly, entitles him to anything other than the money he made when he sold the art? Apologize. Absurd.

 

[Clint_L]

Edit. Never mind. I'm tapping out of this discussion before I get any further ticked off and write something regrettable. Cheers.

 

[Umbran]

That said, the hubbub this causes I’m sure will benefit both parties in terms of sales…

Yep. I daresay the minis line wouldn't get a whole lot of attention online if all the sculpts went with the most obvious interpretations of their originals. A little bit of reinterpretation on one, and we are suddenly all talking about it.

 

[MNblockhead]

The disrespect is stunning and grotesque. It is a male warrior as intended, and always has been. Everything must be ruined, right? That's the end goal, total wasteland.

How is it ruined? You can still enjoy the original art and interpret it in any way you want. Easy to ignore and not buy the miniature if you don't like it.

 

[MNblockhead]

He's not being weird about, what they did was very disrespectful to him. If this was some fan art no one would care, but this is official, they misgendered his art without bothering to contacting him.

In fact all the artists of these old pictures and new should have been contacted and at least given a heads up.

Not how work-for-hire works.

I an artist wants control over their creations, don't enter into work-for-hire contracts. Will limit your income opportunities, but you can pat yourself on your integrity and have some leg to stand on when ranting on how others (mis)use your art.

 

[MNblockhead]

This whole "debate" is ridiculous. The bottom line is that the piece of artwork was Larry's creation. He said he drew a male warrior, so it is a male warrior. You are free to imagine that it is a woman, dog, cat, owlbear or whatever you like. But the fact is the warrior depicted is a male. Much like when a musician writes a song and tells you what the meaning of it is. That is what the song actually means. Sure, you can imagine that it means something else. But that does not change the fact of what the song really means. With that being said I have no problem with Wizkids reimagining something. But it is just that, a reimagining of the original. Not what the famous red box warrior actually was.

I don't really care what the original artist's vision or meaning is. Sure, often it is interesting to learn what the artist was thinking when creating the work. But once you put your art out there for others to see or hear, it is going to mean different things to different people. People are going to see and hear different things. Hell, even creators often re-evaluate and re-interpret their work. By all means share your original meaning, intent, and vision. But once an artist starts ranting against how others are interpreting their work, go shout at the wall. Keep all your future work to yourself and you won't have to worry about other people despoiling your intent.

 

[MNblockhead]

It’s cool to be like “whatever” but let’s face it: the fact that we are discussing it says something. WOTC intended something. It was not casual or accidental.

The only people who care much about that picture are surely long term fans. Was this change for them?

I guess I don’t get the purpose.

Publicity. It would be such a small audience who would care or take much interest otherwise. I expect that this figure will sell much better than the Paladin in Hell figure. Even if this causes many of the older fans to not buy this figurine, I don't think it will have much impact on sales. All the outrage and arguments back and forth on social media will cause more people to buy than otherwise would.