Morals: NG Cleric & CN Dread Necro

[dmjay]

For RP sake, would these two PCs not have an issue with each other.

I'm DMing a group which has a NG Cleric and CN DrdNecro and I keep seeing (in my mind) the Cleric having issues with the necro on a moral level.

What do you think?

[Vauron]

Do you consider the usage of necromancy to be an Evil Only thing? How about the usage of undead specificly, is that evil only to you?

If the answer to either question is 'no', than you did not provide enough information to answer the original question. Unless you postulate that Necromancy and the undead are solely the tools of evil, than there is no inherent problem. As such it comes down entirely to the two characters in question.

[Zanos]

I'd take a look at how the Cleric's deity feels about undead. If their deity has nothing to say about it, by RAW creating undead is inherently evil, but most people think that's stupid, so it depends on your campaign world. If creating undead is inherently evil in your campaign world, I would imagine a good cleric would take issue with it.

[ArqArturo]

When I think of a Slightly-Good True Necromancer/Hexblade, I think of The Witcher.

[dmjay]

Undead is considered 'evil' by majority of the inhabitants of my realm.

The Cleric is a follower of Heironeous, and the Necro is that of Wee Jas.

I'm just wondering if I need to penalize the cleric for standing by and letting the necro do what she pleases. If it's out of character and heironeous dislikes maybe the cleric gets kicked out of the club.

[LTwerewolf]

Heironeous is LG, so his cleric can't be CG, has to be LG, NG, or LN.

If the use of undead is evil in your world, then a good cleric would in fact have a problem with it.

[dmjay]

Heironeous is LG, so his cleric can't be CG, has to be LG, NG, or LN.

If the use of undead is evil in your world, then a good cleric would in fact have a problem with it.

My Bad, Adjusted OP as the Cleric is NG, sorry. And thanks, that's what I was thinking.

[Squirrel_Dude]

Yeah, the cleric would probably have something of an issue with it, and would have a very short temper when it comes to how the undead are being used. I don't remember Heironeous being that tolerant of a deity, either. Whatever, I'm sure it's better than St. Cuthbert.

[captain fubar]

Even if animate dead keeps its [evil] tag would'nt it be nutral if they are used for a good cause say, seting up a zombie bucket bergade to act as fire men or animating a skeleton with the intent to chop it up for positoxin ingredients?

Ultimatly how mindless undead are handled comes down to a DM decision.

It just seems strange that a wild dog that has gained a taste for babys is nuetral becuse it has less than 3 int and can't make meaningfull decisions but the same dosnt apply to mindless undead who are incapable of doing any harm with out orders to do so.

either way you go with this decision if you decide that undead are always evil and that you are runing a non evil campain you should discuss being subtle enough that its isnt obvious or playing somthing else with the dread necro and if they are not always evil you should ask the cleric not to do anything to dirastic when he sees them after all they might not be pleasant but in the second senarieo they are no longer unholy abominations.

[Yora]

Zombies and Skeletons are tools, just like any other weapons. As long as the necromancer uses them responsibly, makes sure they don't get lose, and he doesn't hurt other people by stealing the corpses of their dead relatives, there isn't really that much that one could objectively hold against him.
Now turning an enemy into a sentient undead to enslave him would be adifferent thing, but that depends on what the character is actually doing.

[dmjay]

It's not that undead is evil but society in this world has the mind set that the dead should be buried and stay there. Their perspective is necromancy is black magic and is frowned upon.

[Alex12]

It's not that undead is evil but society in this world has the mind set that the dead should be buried and stay there. Their perspective is necromancy is black magic and is frowned upon.

Then the cleric will almost certainly have serious problems with animating the undead, or at least sentient corpses.

Animating nonsentient creatures might be a useful alternative. Probably easier to morally justify reanimating a squirrel than it is a human.

[Firebug]

According to Deities and Demigods, Heironeous' entry says nothing about how he reacts to undead. But it does talk about how deeds are more important than words. If the Necro doesn't raise any humanoids and does use the (animals/monsters) to defend the innocent, I don't see an issue. Besides, animating humanoids (~1 hd) is a terrible idea because they lose all class levels, if you have the options of raising wild animals (almost always higher then 1 hd). Also, Wee Jas is a Lawful Neutral deity, so it stands to reason Heironeous and Wee Jas get along since they are only different on one axis and by only 1 step.

Also, alignment is an abstraction and IMO no player should know the alignment of another player, only basing it off their actions and comments. I have found that its never the evil player that causes party trouble, its the 'good' player who wants to kill the evil player's character.

[erikun]

There is nothing evil or problematic with using Necromancy spells (in general), so your NG Cleric shouldn't have any problem with most of the CN Dread Necromancer's spell list.

What issue, if any, the Cleric has with allies raising the dead depends a lot on how the DM interprets the action (Are undead malicious or mindless? Is Raise Dead evil or just squicky?) and how the table interprets Heironeous' following. As pointed out, Heironeous doesn't mention undead specifically one way or the other, so as long as creating and using undead is just the "similar to constructs and summons" reasoning, there isn't a reason for the Cleric to specifically complain about the Dread Necro animating or rebuking undead.

[LTwerewolf]

Ultimately, it comes down to if you abide by the [Evil] descriptor on the animate dead line of spells.

[Coidzor]

This might be of interest. Tome of Necromancy. (http://www.tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?t=34248) Discusses the ethical/moral ramnifications of different ways of making the treatment of necromancy consistent.

[Darth Stabber]

In the game I am running making undead is evil in and of itself, and given the party has a DN and an assassin, the idea of a good PC is just untenable at the moment. A new player just joined last session and wanted to play a good druid, which I unfortunately had to put the kibosh on (some intraparty drama is okay, but a good druid and a CE DN would clash to much on a fundamental level.

[NeoPhoenix0]

It all depends on your world. If in your world (like some) creating undead is definitively evil than you will have moral qualms. In some worlds undead are animated by binding a persons soul to it, which is pretty evil. Some worlds creating undead is a corrupting act which leads to moral dilemmas. Finally in a lot of worlds undead are just tools associated with and often used by evil. They are often a sign of evil but not necessarily evil in and of itself. In such a world this is entirely up to your character's personal belief. I suggest you don't take it too far, but a healthy rivalry can be great for RP.

[Deophaun]

Highly likely. Even excluding animate dead (and it is possible to make an effective dread necro that makes little or no use of undead), a disproportionate amount of spells on the dread necro's spell list have the [evil] descriptor. This is one of the reason why a non-good alignment is required to enter the class (and why there's no explicit negative consequence to a dread necro becoming good later: it's tough, mechanically, to be good when you're hitting downed opponents with death knell). At the very least, you possess intimate, practical knowledge of the art of evil. Good characters should be suspicious of you if they know what you are.

[captain fubar]

Wee Jas has both necromancers and palladins as followers and is a core diety. this would suggest that while the common folk might not apreciate their late grandparent poping up for a visit making undead isn't so inherantly evil as to make palladins fall by standing there and watching undead rising in the middle of their church. (that said I doubt they would tolerate some thing that is described as having a inherant hatrid of all life or needing to kill sentients to sustain its self.)

even so the dread necro largly based on undead creation/ control methods that have the Evil descripter.
and the cleric will have alignment/religon play a larger role in the rp than the average charicter

fluff and mechanics contradict one another as to weather making undead is an evil act or not.
how do you plan to rule on this issue? since it will almost certanly come up this should be decided and be made clear before hand.

[Deophaun]

Wee Jas has both necromancers and palladins as followers and is a core diety. this would suggest that while the common folk might not apreciate their late grandparent poping up for a visit making undead isn't so inherantly evil as to make palladins fall by standing there and watching undead rising in the middle of their church.
Necromancy is broader than animate dead. For example, it is the place to be if you want to use [Death] spells, which happens to be Wee Jas's schtick.

And every neutral god is going to have both good and evil followers. It doesn't mean those followers are of the same congregation, or that those followers approve of everything other followers do in that deity's name.

[EvilJames]

In all likelyhood the cleric is going to have big problems with blatant use of undead but not really with necromany in general although he will likely be suspicous of anyone claiming to be a necromancer of any sort. Basicly they can get along but the the dread necro will want to keep his undead use on the down low and not just from the cleric. Local villagers tend to get upset by that as well.

Also Wee jas specifically dislikes undead. She allows some of her followers to become lichs only if it is in pursuit of knowledge that they simply can't gain otherwise or research that they won't otherwise live long enough to fulfill afterwards you are required to destroy yourself lest she alert the paladins to do so for you.

[Phelix-Mu]

Highly likely. Even excluding animate dead (and it is possible to make an effective dread necro that makes little or no use of undead), a disproportionate amount of spells on the dread necro's spell list have the [evil] descriptor. This is one of the reason why a non-good alignment is required to enter the class (and why there's no explicit negative consequence to a dread necro becoming good later: it's tough, mechanically, to be good when you're hitting downed opponents with death knell). At the very least, you possess intimate, practical knowledge of the art of evil. Good characters should be suspicious of you if they know what you are.

Point #1, slightly off-topic: I saw Curmudgeon post the other day something regarding warlocks and no downside to changing their alignment later on (as there is no such thing as ex-warlock). Curmudgeon pointed out that, every time you level, you need to select your class for that level, and he stated that the character must meet the requirements of the class every time that class is selected (or you can't select that class for that level). Dunno if he's right, but it seems somewhat pertinent.

To the broader point, if using undead and necromancy is viewed by most as evil actions, then it really doesn't matter; Heironeous isn't going to just say "Hey, society views all of x and y as evil, but I'm going to ignore that since you seem to be a swell guy." LG is not the easy-going alignment.

Now, the NG cleric of Heironeous is going to be one of the more easy-going of the clerics of Heironeous, so maybe the DN can overcome the prejudice or whatever. I would more generally think that conflict is likely, and probably in-character. Feel free to have the cleric's fellow clergy start to deny the cleric funds/resources/assistance while the cleric is buddying-up to the DN, and feel free to emphasize to the DN that using a bunch of [evil] spells tends to make one CE, not CN.

On a more general note, serious changes have to be made to undead as per RAW before utilizing them can be considered anything besides evil. Utilizing an evil method to achieve good is still evil (classic ends justifying the means, totally not a valid moral argument). Due to the ramifications of animating the dead on souls, and the malignant nature of Negative Energy Plane manifestations, the RAW on undead is pretty clear that using them is a big no-no if you want to be good (and not very easy if you want to be strictly neutral).

[Deophaun]

Point #1, slightly off-topic: I saw Curmudgeon post the other day something regarding warlocks and no downside to changing their alignment later on (as there is no such thing as ex-warlock). Curmudgeon pointed out that, every time you level, you need to select your class for that level, and he stated that the character must meet the requirements of the class every time that class is selected (or you can't select that class for that level). Dunno if he's right, but it seems somewhat pertinent.
That may (or may not) be true of leveling, but the fact still remains if you're a dread necro, and your alignment shifts to good, there is no equivalent of a fall. At worst by Curmudgeon's argument, you just can't take a level of dread necro while you're good (so just PrC out).

[Phelix-Mu]

That may (or may not) be true of leveling, but the fact still remains if you're a dread necro, and your alignment shifts to good, there is no equivalent of a fall. At worst by Curmudgeon's argument, you just can't take a level of dread necro while you're good (so just PrC out).

Agreed. Or, you could do some kind of alignment backpedaling just in time to level, especially at higher levels, where there is usually ample time to anticipate the act of leveling.

How about that final level transformation? Is the PC in question looking to become a lich? I never much cared for that final level. Did they ever release any offical ACF or alternate capstone for DN? I don't really like capstones that reduce overall versatility, frankly.

[Deophaun]

No ACFs for the dread necro. And the capstone (according to the interpretation of custserve) doesn't even work, as you don't get the lich template (I guess they think the phylactery you get is just to decorate your mantle piece).

But yeah, unimpressive. Even if you did become a lich, your class features are already replicating most of the effects, sometimes even better than the lich template would.

[NeoPhoenix0]

No ACFs for the dread necro. And the capstone (according to the interpretation of custserve) doesn't even work, as you don't get the lich template (I guess they think the phylactery you get is just to decorate your mantle piece).

But yeah, unimpressive. Even if you did become a lich, your class features are already replicating most of the effects, sometimes even better than the lich template would.

Is that in a recent thread? If so where is it because the words "she undergoes a hideous transformation and becomes a lich" seem pretty clear.

Edited for accuracy of quote

[Deophaun]

Is that in a recent thread?
No, it's quite old:

Dread Necromancer's Handbook (http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/19872470/New_Dread_Necromancer_Handbook)


Lich Transformation: According to Wizards Custserv [Incident: 070501-000021], you do not gain the Lich template with this ability . You do gain the undead template and have lich like class abilities. Clarification is needed concerning the phylactery. RAW gives a useless phylactery but the class description implies that you would gain the phylactery ability. If you are already undead, there seems to be no reason to take this level as you only are gaining the 9th level spell and the ability to make a useless wonderous item for free.
Now, we all know how accurate Wizard's Custserv is, but as the feature doesn't come out and say you get the lich template, but only lists undead traits, it's a valid interpretation of RAW. I also see what they were trying to do: you are a "lich" by virtue of being undead and having gained supernatural abilities in line with the lich through the dread necro class. It wouldn't be a bad thing if the phylactery worked with this interpretation, as you'd get the lich's greatest asset and avoid the +4 LA (assuming you continued on into epic).

[NeoPhoenix0]

I don't mean to sidetrack the thread so I'm not gonna post here on this topic anymore, but here...


Lich Transformation: When a dread necromancer attains 20th level, she undergoes a hideous transformation and becomes a lich. Her type changes to undead, and she gains all the traits of the undead (see page 317 of the Monster Manual). She no longer has a Constitution score, all her existing Hit Dice become d12s, and she must reroll her hit points. A dread necromancer need not pay experience points or gold to create her phylactery.
A dread necromancer who is not humanoid does not gain this class feature.

It might not explicitly say you apply the lich template but it says you become a lich. It is vague but it still there. Any argument about flavor text is irrelevant when there isn't any distinction between the flavor text and the rules text.

RAW, I would think since it says you become a lich and doesn't say you don't actually apply the template you apply the template, if you are humanoid. Customer service doesn't count as RAW since it isn't written down anywhere.

[Psyren]

"You become a lich" seems pretty clear-cut to me since the only place a lich is clearly defined is MM1. Since the only definition for "lich" in that book is a template, you gain the template.

Similarly, I would expect a class that says "you become a vampire" to grant the vampire template.

[Deophaun]

It might not explicitly say you apply the lich template but it says you become a lich. It is vague but it still there.
I'm not saying that is an invalid interpretation. It is one of several interpretations.

Any argument about flavor text is irrelevant when there isn't any distinction between the flavor text and the rules text.
And this is where you go off the rails. Distinction between crunch and fluff is a contentious issue, as is determining what exists to show intent versus mechanics, or what is explanatory and what is limiting. Declaring that these issues do not exist is foolish.

Now, if you want to argue the point, I suggest you argue with Custserv, as it has been presented in this thread as their interpretation.

[Psyren]

We have no evidence that Custserv said what the quote says they said since there is no way for us to look up incident numbers. And even if we did, there is no evidence that the person giving the response actually went to the designer or another authoritative source, or was just ruling off the fly.

In other words, custserv is completely useless for any kind of rules debate, even moreso than FAQ and online articles might be.

[Fates]

I've always interpreted it as the character gaining the Lich template, sans the LA. :smallconfused:

[Deophaun]

We have no evidence that Custserv said what the quote says they said since there is no way for us to look up incident numbers. And even if we did, there is no evidence that the person giving the response actually went to the designer or another authoritative source, or was just ruling off the fly.

In other words, custserv is completely useless for any kind of rules debate, even moreso than FAQ and online articles might be.
And you are saying this why? Has Custserv been presented any other way in this thread? Do you just want to argue for the sake of argument?

[Psyren]

And you are saying this why? Has Custserv been presented any other way in this thread? Do you just want to argue for the sake of argument?

Because telling someone to go and argue with Custserv is as pointless as citing Custserv in the first place. Neither action has any bearing on the RAW.

[NeoPhoenix0]

Ok let's stop this argument right here because this isn't the thread for that. If you want to continue we should move out of here and let the thread move on.

[Deophaun]

Because telling someone to go and argue with Custserv is as pointless as citing Custserv in the first place. Neither action has any bearing on the RAW.
As it was Custserv's interpretation being argued against, and not anyone else's, to whom else should the argument have been directed? :smallannoyed:

[Phelix-Mu]

This is all getting a bit off topic. I only brought up the matter because planning to become a lich (arguably regardless of method), is usually something only evil people do, and it would be fair if this was a goal of the pc for this kind of goal to be weighed against the character's favor by the clergy of Heironeous.

In short, the DN would be viewed to be following a dark path in a direction that leads to one becoming an unliving abomination via ripping one's soul out of one's body and placing it an item, symbolically abdicating one's "humanity" in favor of undeath. Even if the DN takes time to avoid outright badness, his/her profession declares an interest in this kind of end, and even if the pc plans to multiclass/PrC out, npcs will likely not take the DN on his/her word.

[Psyren]

As it was Custserv's interpretation being argued against, and not anyone else's, to whom else should the argument have been directed? :smallannoyed:

Nobody. There's just no reason to argue at all.


This is all getting a bit off topic. I only brought up the matter because planning to become a lich (arguably regardless of method), is usually something only evil people do, and it would be fair if this was a goal of the pc for this kind of goal to be weighed against the character's favor by the clergy of Heironeous.

In short, the DN would be viewed to be following a dark path in a direction that leads to one becoming an unliving abomination via ripping one's soul out of one's body and placing it an item, symbolically abdicating one's "humanity" in favor of undeath. Even if the DN takes time to avoid outright badness, his/her profession declares an interest in this kind of end, and even if the pc plans to multiclass/PrC out, npcs will likely not take the DN on his/her word.

Agreed - taking the 20th level of DN is just as voluntary as becoming a lich the "normal" way. Since the process is always both voluntary and "unspeakably evil", an alignment change would be the expected result. A Dread Necro who wants to stay CN can easily do something else with their capstone level.

[NeoPhoenix0]

Nobody. There's just no reason to argue at all.



Agreed - taking the 20th level of DN is just as voluntary as becoming a lich the "normal" way. Since the process is always both voluntary and "unspeakably evil", an alignment change would be the expected result. A Dread Necro who wants to stay CN can easily do something else with their capstone level.

This brings up something interesting. different races have different moral guidelines. A non-humanoid taking dread necro 20 doesn't become a lich so the path isn't directly evil for them. The universe seems to hold humanoids to a special scale compared to other races.

[Phelix-Mu]

This brings up something interesting. different races have different moral guidelines. A non-humanoid taking dread necro 20 doesn't become a lich so the path isn't directly evil for them. The universe seems to hold humanoids to a special scale compared to other races.

That last line of the class feature is stupid. Is there some reason, aside from flavor, that a non-humanoid can't become a lich? Without that last line, the class feature reads to me as specific class feature trumping general applicability of the lich template, so any race DN 20 becomes a lich, and the inconsistencies be damned.

This makes much more sense to me than just having an exclusion that means that only a fraction of DNs can benefit from the final class level. I thought they made a point of mostly avoiding blanket racial exclusions? Meh, Wizards.

To the point of the OP, I feel that CN DN really needs to come right out and make a point of not corresponding to the fluff of the class that shuffles most DNs right in the capital "E"vil direction. While rushing to judgement is never a sign of "good," Heironeous is kind of about judging people/ensuring justice is done. Unless the DN can make a good, in-character case for why he shouldn't be persecuted, then I'd imagine it's just going to happen. And it might happen anyway, regardless of the argument (some "good"-type people can be kind of up jerks when it comes to pigeon-holing those that dabble in the dark arts).

[Deophaun]

No, the scale is the same. It's just that, in this case, humanoids have an additional incentive to engage in evil that non-humanoids do not. If a non-humanoid underwent the process to become a lich, that non-humanoid would be performing an evil act as well, even though they don't get the template at the end (and probably wind up dead for their troubles). It is the process that is evil, not the fact that the process was undergone by a human.[/quote]

Edit:


That last line of the class feature is stupid. Is there some reason, aside from flavor, that a non-humanoid can't become a lich? Without that last line, the class feature reads to me as specific class feature trumping general applicability of the lich template, so any race DN 20 becomes a lich, and the inconsistencies be damned.


"Lich" is an acquired template that can be added to any humanoid creature (referred to hereafter as the base creature), provided it can create the required phylactery.

Only a humanoid can become a lich by default. DN 20 is simply stating that it does not override that restriction.

[Alex12]

That last line of the class feature is stupid. Is there some reason, aside from flavor, that a non-humanoid can't become a lich? Without that last line, the class feature reads to me as specific class feature trumping general applicability of the lich template, so any race DN 20 becomes a lich, and the inconsistencies be damned.

This makes much more sense to me than just having an exclusion that means that only a fraction of DNs can benefit from the final class level. I thought they made a point of mostly avoiding blanket racial exclusions? Meh, Wizards.

I will point out that the lich template explicitly says that it can only be applied to humanoids.
However, I find this stupid. So a Goliath (Monstrous Humanoid) or Giant (Giant) couldn't become a lich? Especially since Alhoons are explicitly stated to be Illithids (who are Aberrations) with the lich template applied.
I prefer to interpret this particular instance as meaning "humanoid in body shape" so that you could have, say, a human who turned himself into a Necropolitan as sort of an intermediate step on the path to lichdom. Because if you're undead, turning yourself into a similar but better kind of undead shouldn't require returning to life first.

[Deophaun]

Especially since Alhoons are explicitly stated to be Illithids (who are Aberrations) with the lich template applied...
Heh, and here I thought if I checked Lords of Madness, I'd see a unique template for creating an Alhoon. And I did, and it said it followed all the rules for applying the template to a humanoid, with a few exceptions. None of those exceptions allowed the template to be applied to a mind flayer.

Good job, WotC!

[Phelix-Mu]

Only a humanoid can become a lich by default. DN 20 is simply stating that it does not override that restriction.

Right, my point was more why is it that only a humanoid can be a lich? Is some god of undeath racist or something? Seems very unusual for evil to be turning people away at the door because they have four arms or come from somewhere besides the Prime.

Seems like a pointless piece of flavor that DN 20 would have done well to disown. It's not like DN 20 is some kind of low-balled, easy-bake lich option. 20 levels (admittedly of a pretty nice class) is dedication, and WotC generally was not good at designing capstones.

[hamishspence]

The Death Master class in Dragon Compendium, at least, explicitly states that even nonhumanoids who take 20 levels in the class gain the lich template, despite not normally being eligible.

[Deophaun]

Right, my point was more why is it that only a humanoid can be a lich? Is some god of undeath racist or something? Seems very unusual for evil to be turning people away at the door because they have four arms or come from somewhere besides the Prime.
It could be that whatever makes it easier for a humanoid to be charmed, enlarged, dominated, and held also makes it easier to become a lich. Perhaps other creature types have to research a different process (such as that for creating a dracolich).

Would be an interesting thing to include in a campaign.

[Phelix-Mu]

The Death Master class in Dragon Compendium, at least, explicitly states that even nonhumanoids who take 20 levels in the class gain the lich template, despite not normally being eligible.

"Hi, my name is Orcus, and I'm here to solve your problems."

:smallcool:

[NeoPhoenix0]

The Death Master class in Dragon Compendium, at least, explicitly states that even nonhumanoids who take 20 levels in the class gain the lich template, despite not normally being eligible.

You raised my hopes of creating a nearly impossible to kill vampire lich, but death master says undead only gains certain lich bonuses.

[hamishspence]

The class doesn't say anything about creating a phylactery, either.

I'd go with it being only death masters with Craft Wondrous Item that can, if they wish, do so.

[RogueDM]

More directly to the OP's question regarding the interplay between the Cleric and the Dread Necromancer; this all relies on the cleric knowing that the Necromancer is... that thing. If he doesn't perform any "evil" (as defined by setting) actions there shouldn't be a problem, and if the DN does not explain to people that he or she is a "Dread Necromancer" or intends on becoming a Lich some time in the near future... I mean, these things likely wouldn't be common knowledge. In a setting where magic is somewhat common place only the very inclined would be able to tell a Dread Necromancer from an unspecialized wizard or some such, right?

If the cleric ever finds out that the DN has some villainous hobbies and goals, well, then there might be a s[explicit] show. However, if the DN knows this (from the presumably overt nature of the cleric, or general public opinion of necromancy) he or she might wish to take steps to hide that fact...

Personally I like a little intraparty conflict so long as they can get through the bulk of an adventure without resorting to blows. In a game I'm running two of the PCs are of the same alignment (CG) but differing personal agendas, and as a result are regularly on the verge of a little violence. One of the players in question even confided in me that she is just waiting for it to turn into a catfight. Just requires both players to be on board for playing out animosity and keeping things reasonably civil, that is to say, figuring out where the others' tolerance is and riding it.

Example: Say the cleric is anti-necromancy, so cast a few spells of the necromancy school but don't raise the undead (in their presence). Enough to make their eye twitch, but not enough to result in a fight to the death.

Of course, this is all down to the play style of the group and what the players in question are looking for. If the cleric opts to ignore something that the DM believes "Big H" would disapprove of then by all means make a show of it. Require an atonement or some such.