12
By Friendship or Force: Is it Ethical to Summon Animals to Fight by Your Side in Dungeons & Dragons?

Samantha Noll

As anyone knows who has ever agonized over the D&D Player’s Handbook, trying to decide the race, class, and alignment of a newborn character, particular classes have specific abilities that make them unique. For example, bards have the ability to lull an enemy to sleep with their songs or fortify the resolve of allies, and barbarians can fly into a rage during battle, dealing out massive amounts of damage to foes. In addition, several classes, such as rangers, mages, and druids, have the ability to call upon nonhuman animals for aid. The skill of calling animals to fight by your side brings up unique ethical questions.

In contrast to skills such as lock-picking and trap-making, for example, the ability to summon or call animals involves the participation of an individual that, depending on the particular animal and context, normally cannot give consent like a fellow adventurer could. Animals (whether they be mythical or common) have needs, desires, and, some argue, minds of their own.¹ They are beings living in the world, just was we are. If this were not so, then we wouldn’t enjoy random encounters with them during the game. So the main question that we will attempt to answer in this chapter is the following: Is it ethical for a D&D character to summon a creature to do his or her bidding?

Mages and the Ethics of Summoning

Let’s analyze the actions of mages first, as their relationships with animals often involve domination by powerful spells. Mages usually interact with animals in two ways: First, they can summon animals by using animal-summoning or monster-summoning spells. For example, a panicked or trapped mage could cast a spell, resulting in a number of animals appearing to fight by her side. Second, a mage can summon an animal to be her familiar. A familiar was once a normal animal that has been transformed into a magical beast with unique powers and abilities. Bats, cats, hawks, and rats are examples of common familiar companions. In contrast to animals summoned by animal- or monster-summoning spells, familiars are usually not involved in combat. Rather, they often play the role of a scout, servant, or simple companion.

Let’s consider the example of a panicked or trapped mage summoning animals for aid in battle. Let’s say that this mage is at a low level and only has the ability to call two rats. These two rats, presumably, were doing other things before the mage cast the summoning spell. They may have been building their nests or foraging for food. So we should ask here: Is it right for the mage to call them away from their self-directed tasks? Current work by animal ethicists can help us answer this question.

The contemporary philosopher Bernard Rollin argues that, for as long as we have been domesticating nonhuman others, we have had a social consensus ethic regarding the treatment of animals.² Roughly, this ethic forbade unnecessary, deliberate cruelty toward animals. Allusions to this ethic can be found in many historical documents, including the Bible and other religious texts. For example, in Deuteronomy it is written that “thou shalt not plow with an ox and a donkey together.”³ The reason behind this mandate is to lessen the suffering of animals, as an ox is much stronger than a donkey and the mismatch in strength will make the act of plowing painful for both. Another passage mandates that only a sharp knife should be used for animal butchering. Again, the sharp knife lessens pain. In addition, both Thomas Aquinas (1225–74) and Immanuel Kant (1724–1804) condemned animal cruelty because it could lead to the abuse of humans by humans.⁴

According to this “traditional animal ethic,” largely accepted by humans before the advent of industrial agriculture, the simple act of summoning the two rats is not ethically wrong if it does not cause unnecessary suffering for the rats. Thus the mage could summon animals and still be acting ethically. However, in the above example the mage is essentially calling the rats into battle and also taking them away from tasks that may be necessary for their survival or wellbeing. Both of these acts could be understood as causing the animals unnecessary suffering and would, therefore, be wrong. Thus one could use the traditional animal ethic standpoint to argue both for and against the efficacy of summoning animals into battle.

While the traditional ethic could be used to both condone and argue against such treatment, other animal ethics may have a different assessment of the act of summoning animals into battle. For example, the contemporary philosopher Peter Singer uses a “utilitarian approach” to decide what is or is not the correct way to treat animals.⁵ Specifically, he and other utilitarians argue that an ethical action is one that maximizes the greatest good for the greatest number of individuals. However, Singer’s approach slightly differs because he argues that suffering should be the main ethical criterion that we need to take into account when deciding which action is the right one to take. Thus, for Singer, the action that brings about the least amount of suffering for the greatest number is the one that is ethical.

So let’s say that the two rats died trying to save the mage’s life. In this instance one could simplistically argue that calling the rats was ethically wrong because it caused more suffering (the death of two rats) than good (the survival of one mage). However, more weight might be given to the mage’s life, because the mage may have many friends and family members who would all suffer because of her death. In that case, one could argue that it is ethical for the mage to summon the rats for help even if the rats die. It appears that we are at an impasse because the ethic could be used to argue that summoning is ethical and is not ethical. Let’s turn to another animal ethicist for help.

The rights ethicist Tom Regan argues that animals have particular rights because they are subjects of a life, meaning that they seek to satisfy specific preferences and interests.⁶ According to Regan, if an animal is a subject of a life, then we must respect its desire to pursue such goals. For example, the rats above may have preferences for building nests and walking along a particular pond at night. If this is the case, then the mage’s act of summoning could be understood as a violation of the rats’ basic right to pursue these interests. Thus, as long as the mage is forcefully summoning the rats, her act is unethical. It appears that two animal ethics can be used to condone summoning animals, while one forbids it.

Wizards and the Ethics of Familiars

What about familiars? While the above issue of summoning animals into battle may be problematic, surely having a furry or scale-covered familiar is acceptable? In this case, the mage grants special abilities to the animals and develops a long-term relationship with them. Sure, the animals may be separated from their home and companions during this process but they are well taken care of and usually not caused physical pain (this last point depends on the alignment of the mage, of course). In addition, in contrast to the rats we considered, these animals are generally not required to participate in combat. From the standpoint of the traditional ethic above, the act of taking and keeping a familiar appears because the animal is not caused needless suffering. However, other animal ethicists may not agree.

For example, let’s return to Peter Singer’s utilitarian animal ethic. If summoning a familiar means removing the animal from animal companions, who presumably will suffer because of this separation, then the act of taking a familiar may be unethical according to Singer. For example, if the mage takes a hawk that, prior to the summoning and subsequent magical transformation, has chicks and a mate, then the joy that the mage gains by taking the hawk as a familiar may be outweighed by the suffering caused by removing the hawk from its family. In addition, if the mage commands the familiar to do tasks that cause it more suffering than can be outweighed by benefits to the mage and others, then these actions would also be unethical according to Singer. However, if taking a familiar causes more overall good than suffering, then the action would be ethical. So which is it? Is the mage acting ethically or not? So far, as with the case of summoning animal aid in battle, we have votes for and against the positive ethical character of this particular action. Let’s apply Regan’s animal ethic to see if we can break the tie, so to speak.

Remember that, according to Tom Regan, animals have particular rights because they are subjects of a life. If this is the case, then Regan’s ethic could be used to argue against obtaining a familiar. For example, the hawk may have a preference for mice and for flying the mountain passes of a particular region. If the mage denies the hawk these pursuits, then, according to this ethic, the mage would be acting unethically because she is not respecting the basic rights of the animal. In contrast to the traditional ethic, which would largely condone the use of animals as familiars, and the Singer’s utilitarianism ethic, which could either condone or not condone such an action, Regan’s ethic could be used to argue that such treatment is unethical.

Similarly, Rollin’s “respect for telos” animal ethic mandates that we should follow the “maxim to respect telos” when deciding how to treat animals.⁷ This maxim is, roughly, that if we have dealings with animals, we need to respect their needs and desires or their telos. This term was widely used by Aristotle (384–322 bce) and has been highly influential throughout the history of philosophy. If you accept this ethic, then the mage’s actions are again unethical because, through turning the familiar into a magical beast, the mage is not respecting the animal’s telos because the she effectively changes that telos into something altogether different.

Animal Ethics and Character Alignment

We are again at an impasse as we are left with two ethics that could condone taking a familiar and two that deem the activity wrong. In addition, we are left with ethics that could be used to either condone or condemn summoning animals to battle, depending on the circumstances. So what is a D&D character to do in this situation? Well, that all depends on the character’s alignment, of course. If your character is good then he or she would most likely take the above ethical arguments into consideration when deciding whether or not to take a familiar, and when deciding whether or not to summon animals to fight. Deciding whether or not it is the right thing to do may appear to be a difficult task, but no one said that playing a good character is easy. Often such characters are faced with difficult ethical dilemmas that have no clear cut answer. Hopefully, the ethics above can help you make wise and good choices.

In addition, identifying exactly which ethic your character is drawn to may create further character depth because it tells you something about your character’s ethical makeup and problematizes the seemingly “easy” choice of doing good acts. For example, playing a good utilitarian mage will be a completely different experience than playing a good mage who wholeheartedly accepts Regan’s rights-based ethic. While both have a good alignment, they will make strikingly different decisions in some situations.

In contrast to good characters, one with an evil alignment may ignore or even delight in knowing that his or her actions would be considered wrong by these measures. Think of the evil mage who summons magical beasts only to magically chain them and experiment upon them. Such characters would not be moved by ethical arguments. Finally, neutral characters may choose to take the above ethics into account or may choose not to. Such characters can take the middle ethical path and thus can stray in either direction. Mystra only knows what a chaotic neutral character would do in such a situation.

Druids and the Ethics of Summoning Animals

While wizards seem to have it particularly hard in the animal ethics department, other classes may have an easier time of determining the right way to treat animals. For example, both druids and rangers could potentially sidestep such ethical pitfalls. In D&D, a ranger can befriend animals and gain an animal companion (such as a bear, wolf, or falcon) after a particular level. Contrary to the relationship of wizards with nonhuman others, where they use the power of magic to force compliance and bind the animal to their will, rangers “befriend” nonhuman others. This implies that the relationship between ranger and animal is one of mutual respect that has been chosen by each party.

If this is the case, then each of the ethics above could be used to argue that such a relationship is ethical. For example, a person could argue that the ranger is respecting the rights of the animal to follow its own interests and is thus following Regan’s ethic. In addition, a person could argue that she is respecting Rollin’s maxim to respect telos. Finally, as she is simultaneously not causing the animal suffering (by separating it from its nonhuman companions) and benefiting from the animal’s company, a person could use Singer’s ethic to argue that this relationship is ethical. Thus it appears that it is relatively easy to determine whether or not the ability to form such relationships is ethical. This would also hold for druids, who can speak the language of animals, and call them when they are needed, as these animals come willingly.

Trouble in the Druid Grove

What if the animals die when they come to the aid of rangers or druids? Is the action still ethical? For example, what if a druid is attacked in the forest by group of bandits? Panicked, she calls out to the animals nearby for aid, and several birds, rabbits, and a boar come to help. In the process of defending the druid, several animals suffer injury and two of the rabbits die. In this instance, was it ethical for the druid to call upon the animals for help, even if giving this aid may mean their death?

According to Regan’s ethic, the act of the druid calling for help is ethical because it did not violate the animals’ right to pursue their own interests. If the rabbits made the choice to come to the druid’s aid, then the druid should not be blamed for the consequences of their choices. However, according to Singer’s ethic, this action may not be ethical, depending on the amount of suffering caused. If the suffering of the animals outweighs the good of saving the druid, then the druid would be wrong to save her skin at the expense of animal lives.

Again, the decision of the character to call for help will largely be determined by the alignment of the druid. A good druid or ranger may sacrifice her life to protect the animals of the forest, while an evil one would gladly sacrifice animal life for his own, no matter which action is right. However, it still holds that such relationships are less problematic than mage–animal relations.

Thus there appears to be a big difference between befriending animals and forcefully controlling animals in order to make them fight by your side. While the first skill set may be slightly problematic in some situations, the ability to form relationships and ask for help is not, by itself, problematic. In contrast, the mage, with her control of powerful magic, should be aware of the possibility that such power can be abused and cause the unnecessary suffering and death of nonhuman others. As Lord Acton wrote, “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”⁸ It appears that this also holds in Dungeons & Dragons. Thus, when playing a character who can summon nonhuman animals, it may be wise to take the ethics into account when deciding what actions are best. At the very least, this will give you the opportunity to more fully develop a complex and interesting character.

Notes

1. Irene Pepperberg and Spencer K. Lynn, “Possible Levels of Animal Consciousness with Reference to Grey Parrots (Psittacus erithacus),” American Zoologist 40 (2000), pp. 893–901.

2. Bernard E. Rollin, Farm Animal Welfare: Social, Biological, and Research Issues (Ames: Iowa State University Press, 2003).

3. Deuteronomy 22: 10 (King James Bible).

4. Hugh Lafollette and Niall Shanks, Brute Science: Dilemmas of Animal Experimentation (New York: Routledge, 1996).

5. Peter Singer, Animal Liberation (New York: HarperCollins, 2002).

6. Tom Regan, Animal Rights, Human Wrongs (Oxford: Rowman & Littlefield, 2003).

7. B.E. Rollin, “On Telos and Genetic Engineering,” in S.J. Armstrong and R.G. Botzler, eds., The Animal Ethics Reader (New York: Routledge, 2003), pp. 342–350.

8. The quote is from a “Letter to Bishop Mandell Creighton, April 5, 1887,” published in Historical Essays and Studies, ed. J.N. Figgis and R.V. Laurence (London: Macmillan, 1907).