117 réponses à ce sujet

[Orion1836]

I went the other way around when I first played the game... I wanted to see exactly how good or how evil Shepard could be. I didn't try to roleplay based upon a background. Instead, I learned about the characters on the way.

My first character (Spacer, War Hero), soldier Shep was always Upper Left Blue or Upper Right Yellow. What *evolved* from constantly making those choices was a character who, while a Boy Scout, seemed to have both the intestinal and testicular fortitude to stick by his principles no matter what. It's one thing to help people in need, it's another to take one on the chin because the alternative would be someone getting hurt. I expected to see a goody-two-shoes and instead I got a principle-driven warrior.

My second character, (Earthborn, Ruthless) infiltrator FemShep, was supposed to be the polar opposite. She was 100% Lower Left Red or Lower Right Yellow. What I quickly learned was that there are two ways to play Renegade. A) You just be a total #*$%bite and screw things up to the point where the outcome goes badly, or get things done the way they're supposed to be done, but do it in the most brutal and self-serving way you possibly can (this is what my character chose). My infiltrator soon evolved into this, well, not quite evil ****, but someone who took absolutely *no* $#!^ off anyone and would cut down, without hesitation, any obstacle between her and the goal. That said, her objectives were just as lofty and noble as my paragon Shep, but she didn't give a rat's **** who she hurt or killed along the way.

Once I got a feeling for these characters in ME1 and the front half of ME2, I started making the 'gray' decisions that were neither paragon nor renegade (such as LI), based on what I think they would chose.

Paragon Soldier Shepard

ME1 Romance: My paragon MShep liked Tali in ME1 and would have romanced her had it been an option. The description of her life aboard the Flotilla struck a chord in him, reminding him of his own time spent growing up on the
Alliance fleet, moving from ship to ship with his parents.  Being able to finally tell Tali how he felt in ME2 was probably the greatest thing to happen to him. He did not romance Ashley because he'd never dream of fraternizing with an enlisted crewmember. He could have seen himself with Liara, and may have given off a few signals unintentionally, but never pursued it because he just couldn't see giving his heart to a being who would move on to other people long after he was dead (and eventually a distant memory). He does know, however, that Liara has a thing for him.

ME2 Romance: Tali. It hurt Shepard not to be able to take Tali with him on Freedom's Progress, and from the second her dossier was made available, he was on his way to pick her up. Also, despite no possibility of romance, Shep finds a kindred soul in Samara.

Virmire: Shep chose to save Ashley on Virmire purely because of her gender, though he doesn't know that. His innate sense of chivalry, down at an unconscious level, would never allow him to save a man at the cost of a woman, no matter rank or situation.

Misc: As a whole, he cares a great deal about the Quarian people and their plight, and would do so even without Tali. This drove him to help Quarians at every opportunity in ME2. Shepard has loathed wearing the Cerberus emblem ever since he was brought back, and now that the Collector Base has been destroyed, he plans on removing all of TIM's monitoring devices, taking the SR2 to the Alliance, and requesting reinstatement in the Alliance military. He is greatly looking forward to removing all of the Cerberus logos on the Normandy and wearing an Alliance uniform again.

Renegade Infiltrator FemShep:

ME1 Romance: She shamelessly flirted with Kaidan during the first game, relishing the chance to both abuse her power and flaunt the rules. Her inherent selfishness and nasty attitude, however, drove him away. Learning from this, she went against her nature and was as nice as possible to Liara, seeing both the exotic and the innocent in the Asari.

ME2 Romance: Despite her intentions to use and lose Liara, Shep actually grew quite attached to her, finding solace in her calm demeanor. Though confused and quite upset with Liara's unwillingness to help out in ME2, she remained loyal, both from a desire to see things through, and for lack of any better options.

Virmire: Shep chose to save Kaidan because she liked him, even if they weren't together. It was purely selfish reasoning.

Misc: She loves violence and killing to a very unhealthy degree. Whenever an opportunity presents itself to drop someone, she takes it. Becoming a SPECTRE and being able to kill without accountability was the greatest thing that could have happened to Shepard. She definitely believes that 'the ends justify the means,' and because of this, greatly appreciates Cerberus' philosophy. While originally unhappy about being brought back by Cerberus, she has since come to appreciate the opportunity to cut ties with the Alliance and the Council and looks forward to continuing on as a Cerberus operative.

Modifié par Orion1836, 12 mai 2010 - 06:43 .

[enormousmoonboots]

Shandepared wrote...

enormousmoonboots wrote...

Yeah killing poor people is pretty tough. Definitely gonna need those skills. Morinth, seduce those Collectors. Immediately.

Evading a Justicar like Samara for 400 years is nothing to turn up your nose at.

Except that the skills for evading police don't transfer well to shooting aliens in the face (gameplay clonery aside). She didn't avoid Samara because she's got Solid Snake-level stealth skills like Kasumi, she evaded her through disguise (will not matter to Collectors) and knowing where and when to strike (kill people that won't be missed, certainly won't help with Collectors because again, she's not Snake). And never forget that the game outright tells you that she's a junkie looking for her next fix, even moreso than traditional murderers.

Career serial killers don't make good soldiers.

[InvaderErl]

My Shep starts up in 1 as a borderline xenophobic renegade soldier - colonist/ruthless. Learns lessons about love and all that crap. Ends up being a Paragade w/Tali.

[Onyx Jaguar]

Same ****ing thing happened to my manshep man


EDIT: Same exact ****ing thing

Modifié par Onyx Jaguar, 12 mai 2010 - 07:06 .

[InvaderErl]

Onyx Jaguar wrote...

Same ****ing thing happened to my manshep man


EDIT: Same exact ****ing thing

Stop copying me! D:<

[Onyx Jaguar]

To be fair he is Earthborn, so its not 1oo% the same. But yeah it pretty much is the same.



And I bet I did it before you did!

[InvaderErl]

OMG NO WAI.

[Jetpackshark]

I like to think of my pure Paragon Shepard as canon, and my "main" Shepards will stay that way. Once I am done playing it, I will start a new game as a personal Shepard, decisions based off what I really believe in, what I would really say, and how I would really react. After that, I'm going to go all Renegade. Renegade looks unbelievably fun (Never even tried Renegade in ME1 unfortunately).

[Shepard Lives]

Shandepared wrote...


Evading a Justicar like Samara for 400 years is nothing to turn up your nose at.

Very well then.

"Morinth, evade those Collectors now!"

[Bitterfoam]

Yes, very good. Samara and Morinth of are equal strength. While Samara should hold the edge, it's clear that Morinth's strength increases each time she eats someone's soul.



And both appear to be equally loyal - Samara because she swears an oath to be such, Morinth because she's infatuated with Shepard and is still trying to seduce him/her.



The difference? Samara is calm, collected. Sure, she's a zealot, but there's something to be said for zealots in that you always know which way they're going to turn. Morinth is a psychotic plague on the galaxy, a creature who gets off on social machinations and seduction and is a master of manipulation, so much so it's in everything she does and literally drips off her tongue when she speaks.



How do you reconcile it? Boohoo, the rachni queen might be lying to Shepard despite there being nothing in her words or tone to suggest that. But Morinth is trustworthy?

[Pacifien]

Well, you know.... Morinth is hot...

[nhsk]

People want to romance friggin aliens in this game, some bizarro weirdo might want to romance the rachni queen... Your point?

[Ladi]

Bitterfoam wrote...

How do you reconcile it? Boohoo, the rachni queen might be lying to Shepard despite there being nothing in her words or tone to suggest that. But Morinth is trustworthy?

We're all super good at roleplaying, so let's try imaging this. You are in a cage. In front of you is a man who can end your life at the press of a button. You are the smartest of your species, and its only hope for survival. You think he looks kinda delicious.

Do you:

1. Act reasonably and try and convince him to let you go
2. Say you want to feast on his flesh

It's not about what they sound like, it's about what their motivation is.

Morinth isn't trustworthy in the slightest, but she is initially less of a direct threat to you, as you have shown you can resist her advances while Samara has threatened to hunt you down.

My personal argument against Morinth would be that by removing Samara from the picture, you release the limits she has placed on herself. She no longer needs to be nearly as careful about her actions - with no one chasing her she can feed more regularly, growing stronger each time.

She also assumes Samara's identity, who's Justicar status might grant her special privileges in Asari society. Additionally, she might become fixated on Shep as the one who got away, coming back when she's grown powerful enough to dominate you.

Edit: Just realised that the bit about her assuming Samara's identity is technically metagaming as you don't find out how things'll play out til you've actually killed Samara. The bit about growing stronger due to not being pursued still holds though, as does the fixation angle.

Modifié par Ladi, 12 mai 2010 - 02:48 .

[Pacifien]

Ladi wrote...
Morinth isn't trustworthy in the slightest, but she is initially less of a direct threat to you, as you have shown you can resist her advances while Samara has threatened to hunt you down.

Actually, in regards to how much of a threat Morinth can be toward you, it somewhat depends on how paragon/renegade you are. If you don't have enough morality points, you can't pull away from Morinth when she starts the meld, and the only thing that saves you is Samara's entrance.

Of course, once Morinth is saved, she catches on quite quickly that she should at least wait for Shepard to save the galaxy first before she gets her sweet lovin'.

[Bitterfoam]

Ladi wrote...

Bitterfoam wrote...

How do you reconcile it? Boohoo, the rachni queen might be lying to Shepard despite there being nothing in her words or tone to suggest that. But Morinth is trustworthy?

We're all super good at roleplaying, so let's try imaging this. You are in a cage. In front of you is a man who can end your life at the press of a button. You are the smartest of your species, and its only hope for survival. You think he looks kinda delicious.

Do you:

1. Act reasonably and try and convince him to let you go
2. Say you want to feast on his flesh

It's not about what they sound like, it's about what their motivation is.

Morinth isn't trustworthy in the slightest, but she is initially less of a direct threat to you, as you have shown you can resist her advances while Samara has threatened to hunt you down.

My personal argument against Morinth would be that by removing Samara from the picture, you release the limits she has placed on herself. She no longer needs to be nearly as careful about her actions - with no one chasing her she can feed more regularly, growing stronger each time.

She also assumes Samara's identity, who's Justicar status might grant her special privileges in Asari society. Additionally, she might become fixated on Shep as the one who got away, coming back when she's grown powerful enough to dominate you.

Edit: Just realised that the bit about her assuming Samara's identity is technically metagaming as you don't find out how things'll play out til you've actually killed Samara. The bit about growing stronger due to not being pursued still holds though, as does the fixation angle.

I agree with you on all the points regarding Morinth. Morinth is, undoubtedly, a horrible choice for any Shepard save Psychotic Shepard to make.

I do take exception to your scenario regarding the rachni queen, though. It's interesting how a bunch of people seem to get the point about tone, and others don't. Morinth is a consummate backstabber and manipulator, and yet every single bit of her voice belies her intentions. This is a character playing a social game, grown in society, capable of understanding it, maneuvering through it, and using it. If there was any character to really doubt what they're saying, Morinth is the big one, and yet everything's plain-as-day.

Meanwhile, the rachni queen is a creature just awoken, fresh to the world, and not a part of sentient culture. She would not understand the social and political game the way Morinth does, or the way Udina does, or the rest of the Council, or Shepard, or Saren. She's wholly separated from it all. She can only even speak to Shepard through use of an asari proxy, which further symbolizes the detachment. But she's a better manipulator than Morinth, in that the rachni queen can perfectly hide her disdain, want to eat Shepard's eyeballs, and maniacal want for destruction? Please. There is, again, nothing to suggest the rachni queen capable of lying, nor anything to suggest an actuality of her lying. Nothing in her tone suggests any amount of betrayal. It's all face value, and it's all honest. If she was a bloodthirsty beast, she'd have been portrayed that way.

[Goodwood]

Bitterfoam wrote...

Meanwhile, the rachni queen is a creature just awoken, fresh to the world, and not a part of sentient culture. She would not understand the social and political game the way Morinth does, or the way Udina does, or the rest of the Council, or Shepard, or Saren. She's wholly separated from it all. She can only even speak to Shepard through use of an asari proxy, which further symbolizes the detachment. But she's a better manipulator than Morinth, in that the rachni queen can perfectly hide her disdain, want to eat Shepard's eyeballs, and maniacal want for destruction? Please. There is, again, nothing to suggest the rachni queen capable of lying, nor anything to suggest an actuality of her lying. Nothing in her tone suggests any amount of betrayal. It's all face value, and it's all honest. If she was a bloodthirsty beast, she'd have been portrayed that way.

This.

This.

By the Force, this!

[Dean_the_Young]

Except the Rachni have genetic memory. They are born knowing society and politics of their ancestors: ancestors which tried to wipe out the galaxy.



The suggestion that there is no proven capability of lying is preposterous. Children learn to lie before they learn to talk: lying is a survival strategy that boosts survivability. Groups that don't lie and cheat are wiped out and assimilated by those that can. Rather than prove the capability of lying, it must rather be proven that someone be incapable of lying to take them at their word. And if she is lying, the tone of her thrall is meaningless: besides the unknown mechanics of how tone would translate from a bug species that doesn't talk or have facial features to a half-dead Asari, she could simply be a good liar, knowledge that would have been picked up from her genetic memory.

[Ladi]

Bitterfoam wrote...

I do take exception to your scenario regarding the rachni queen, though. It's interesting how a bunch of people seem to get the point about tone, and others don't. Morinth is a consummate backstabber and manipulator, and yet every single bit of her voice belies her intentions. This is a character playing a social game, grown in society, capable of understanding it, maneuvering through it, and using it. If there was any character to really doubt what they're saying, Morinth is the big one, and yet everything's plain-as-day.

Meanwhile, the rachni queen is a creature just awoken, fresh to the world, and not a part of sentient culture. She would not understand the social and political game the way Morinth does, or the way Udina does, or the rest of the Council, or Shepard, or Saren. She's wholly separated from it all. She can only even speak to Shepard through use of an asari proxy, which further symbolizes the detachment. But she's a better manipulator than Morinth, in that the rachni queen can perfectly hide her disdain, want to eat Shepard's eyeballs, and maniacal want for destruction? Please. There is, again, nothing to suggest the rachni queen capable of lying, nor anything to suggest an actuality of her lying. Nothing in her tone suggests any amount of betrayal. It's all face value, and it's all honest. If she was a bloodthirsty beast, she'd have been portrayed that way.

I'm totally for saving the Rachni, fyi. I'm devil's avocado here (lol) pointing out that basic survival instincts would cause her to act subservient. If anything, her being detached from direct contact would make it easier for her to lie to you; how good are you are reading Rachni expressions, or the emotions conveyed by a cadaver?

Metagaming point: In ME2, is the reaction ordering her to release control of the Asari a Paragon or Renegade one? It shows lack of confidence, regardless.

She is clearly not naive to the workings of the world - she seemed to have memories of her ancestors and the actions they committed. Further, she states that the Rachni were being influenced by a force we have no knowledge of (perhaps the Reapers). If this is the case, who is to say that they won't take control of them again? In that regard, she is a potential threat to galactic stability, whether willing or not.

Edit: Dang, arguing on the same side as Dean for once!

Edit 2: @Pacifien - That is a very good point, one that actually happened to me on the playthrough I recruited her (temporarily). I was kinda speeding through things because being a Renegade isn't my cup of tea, and ended up not hitting the requirement. Was really freaky having to answer "I'll do anything you want...", thought I might get a non-standard Game Over

Modifié par Ladi, 12 mai 2010 - 04:37 .

[Goodwood]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Except the Rachni have genetic memory. They are born knowing society and politics of their ancestors: ancestors which tried to wipe out the galaxy.

Genetic memory does not necessarily mean what we may think it means (i.e., it probably relates more to genetic code sequences than it does to who won the Battle of Whereveritwas in 225 BCE). And even if this catch-all term does mean that the queen "remembers" society and politics, that doesn't mean she has had the time to actually assimilate and understand those memories. A hypothetical: If you were to suddenly have access to all the memories of Abraham Lincoln, would you be able to immediately relate them to others in a form they could understand?

The suggestion that there is no proven capability of lying is preposterous. Children learn to lie before they learn to talk: lying is a survival strategy that boosts survivability. Groups that don't lie and cheat are wiped out and assimilated by those that can. Rather than prove the capability of lying, it must rather be proven that someone be incapable of lying to take them at their word. And if she is lying, the tone of her thrall is meaningless: besides the unknown mechanics of how tone would translate from a bug species that doesn't talk or have facial features to a half-dead Asari, she could simply be a good liar, knowledge that would have been picked up from her genetic memory.

"I am a Vulcan. I am incapable of lying."

And yet, Spock bends the truth on so many occasions, it's almost a staple of that universe and that character. Despite this, we know that he is an honorable person, who only engages in such acts if it would serve to bring about the best possible solution. For all we know, the rachni themselves may be incapable of lying; by your own admission, they are a "bug species that doesn't talk" and could only communicate through "a half-dead asari".

Modifié par Goodwood, 12 mai 2010 - 04:43 .

[Dean_the_Young]

As for Morinth being unpredictable, I disagree. People with mental diseases/addictions (or let's just say sociopaths), no matter how brilliant, follow patterns that also make them predictable. They're more susceptible to psychological profiling than most normal people who aren't dominated by a particular trait.



Simply because Samara follows written rules doesn't mean she's predictable. The Justicar code is ancient and byzantine, and without the Oath of Submission there's no guarantee she will do what you want her to even as a Paragon. For the same reasons of Code that led her to wipe out a village of Dominated followers of Morinth down to the children, she would not have spared the colonists on Feros. Simply because an action is paragon would not mean it is acceptable to her Code and would not obligate her to turn on you. Samara is not lawful good, she is lawful.

[Dean_the_Young]

Goodwood wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Except the Rachni have genetic memory. They are born knowing society and politics of their ancestors: ancestors which tried to wipe out the galaxy.

Genetic memory does not necessarily mean what we may think it means (i.e., it probably relates more to genetic code sequences than it does to who won the Battle of Whereveritwas in 225 BCE). And even if this catch-all term does mean that the queen "remembers" society and politics, that doesn't mean she has had the time to actually assimilate and understand those memories. A hypothetical: If you were to suddenly have access to all the memories of Abraham Lincoln, would you be able to immediately relate them to others in a form they could understand?

The hypothetical is meaningless because we do know that genetic memory for the Rachni means remembering who won the Battle of Wherevveritwas in 225 BCE. It's told to us in the description of the Rachni inherited memory, and it's why Benezia went to the Rachni queen in the first place: because the Queen knew where the Mu Relay was because her mother or mother's mother knew. Whether she took time to assimilate them or not, she clearly does by the time you arrive: she knows locations she's never been,  remembers wars she never fought, and understands the consequences and context leading to your decision.

"I am a Vulcan. I am incapable of lying."

And yet, Spock bends the truth on so many occasions, it's almost a staple of that universe and that character. Despite this, we know that he is an honorable person, who only engages in such acts if it would serve to bring about the best possible solution.

So... you just agreed that even Spock is more or less capable of lying. Lack of truth by omission, truth by selective facts, these are still lies when intended to misdirect and deceive. But we don't even have that much for the Queen.

We do not know that the Rachni Queen is an honorable person: we have no time to familiarize with her character. No claim whatsoever is made that she is incapable of lying or deception.

[Goodwood]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

As for Morinth being unpredictable, I disagree. People with mental diseases/addictions (or let's just say sociopaths), no matter how brilliant, follow patterns that also make them predictable. They're more susceptible to psychological profiling than most normal people who aren't dominated by a particular trait.

Tell that to the homacide cops whose job it is to track down and catch serial killers, among more mundame murderers. While most socio/psychopathic criminals may have a pattern (which makes sense only to themselves, by the way), that doesn't mean they all do. And while the cops are doing their best to unravel that pattern, the killer is still out there, doing his/her thing, while those out-of-whack gears in that messed-up noggin may shift, causing their pattern to shift. In that case, it's simply a matter of how much carnage they cause before they're finally caught.

Don't pretend that all serial killers or junkies can be lumped into the same categories, or that there is always some sort of mental illness behind their actions. There is a hell of a lot more to this science than you'll find in any crime novel or murder mystery.

Simply because Samara follows written rules doesn't mean she's predictable. The Justicar code is ancient and byzantine, and without the Oath of Submission there's no guarantee she will do what you want her to even as a Paragon. For the same reasons of Code that led her to wipe out a village of Dominated followers of Morinth down to the children, she would not have spared the colonists on Feros. Simply because an action is paragon would not mean it is acceptable to her Code and would not obligate her to turn on you. Samara is not lawful good, she is lawful.

Again, you generalize. Samara explains everything to you if you take the time to ask her. She does not take pleasure from what she does (a key point here, given your disertation on psychotics), and makes a point to remember every life she has taken. You also make the mistake of attempting to interpose a character's morals onto a situation that they could not have been a part of, which is being uncharitable at best.

In any case, Samara doesn't "threaten" to kill Shepard. She simply states, after she has given her oath, that if Shepard makes her do anything extremely dishonorable, that she may need to kill Shepard. The way she says it, this is clearly meant to be a cautionary statement, in order to remind Shepard of what having a justicar in his/her service really means. If the Renegades want to take that as a threat, I can't stop them from thinking that, but it does smack a little of paranoia.

[Dean_the_Young]

Goodwood wrote...

Tell that to the homacide cops whose job it is to track down and catch serial killers, among more mundame murderers. While most socio/psychopathic criminals may have a pattern (which makes sense only to themselves, by the way), that doesn't mean they all do. And while the cops are doing their best to unravel that pattern, the killer is still out there, doing his/her thing, while those out-of-whack gears in that messed-up noggin may shift, causing their pattern to shift. In that case, it's simply a matter of how much carnage they cause before they're finally caught.

Don't pretend that all serial killers or junkies can be lumped into the same categories, or that there is always some sort of mental illness behind their actions. There is a hell of a lot more to this science than you'll find in any crime novel or murder mystery.

Of course, and I never tried to imply otherwise. But I was arguing against claims that Morinth is innately unpredictable and irrational. As long as Morinth lives, she'll act like she does.

Of course, if you're worried about number of deaths, Morinth isn't the one of the two with the higher body bag count. That unquestionably goes to Samara: Morinth kills in drips and drabs, while Samara kills entire vilages, criminal bases, and police stations.

Again, you generalize. Samara explains everything to you if you take the time to ask her. She does not take pleasure from what she does (a key point here, given your disertation on psychotics), and makes a point to remember every life she has taken. You also make the mistake of attempting to interpose a character's morals onto a situation that they could not have been a part of, which is being uncharitable at best.

That she doesn't take pleasure from her actions in no way diminishes the crime. Nor is there any suggestion that Morinth doesn't remember each individual: infact, the opposite is implied: while Morinth is choosy and takes time to know her victims, Samara makes a deliberate effort to not know them as much as possible. To paraphrase Samara, 'if I kill a mercenary, do I want to know that he was a devoted father?'

If you spare Samara on the expectation she will act again in the future, she can well be a part of such a situation. It would be foolish not to: never does Samara suggest she will not travel and act, and when she acts it will be by the same code that would apply to her other situations. Feros was one example: many other sidequests in ME2 could also apply, like the Javeline Missile decision. No matter what your reasons, once she is not bound by her code she will always act one way or another depending on your actions.

In any case, Samara doesn't "threaten" to kill Shepard. She simply states, after she has given her oath, that if Shepard makes her do anything extremely dishonorable, that she may need to kill Shepard. The way she says it, this is clearly meant to be a cautionary statement, in order to remind Shepard of what having a justicar in his/her service really means. If the Renegades want to take that as a threat, I can't stop them from thinking that, but it does smack a little of paranoia.

Since her definition of extremely dishonorable doesn't include killing villages of influenced people, it's hard not to take it as a 'if it violates my rules, not yours.' And even a Paragon's rules are not the Code, by who's rules she may or may not need to kill Shepard. Samara does not decide whether or not she may have to kill you: the Code does.

Let's take a situation from ME2 that does have to do with sacrificing lives: the Collector Base choice. If you take the base, you give technology to Cerberus but save more lives, military and innocent, in the battle to come. If you destroy the base, those lives that could have been saved sacrificed. You have effectively seen them, and killed them with your choice knowing the consequences.

Since the Justicars are not a political organization and are fixated on the specific points of practical, the politics of who dominates the galaxy does not concern them. How much of the galaxy does survive, however, does.

By the rule of "I will not kill an innocent", and the Nihlus-demonstrated extension "I will not an innocent die", it could well be argued that the Code would necessitate that a non-bound Samara hand over/protect the base, no matter how she feels about it personally. (Since she is bound to you, she is free to express her personal relief at the base's  destruction.) This despite that that the Paragon choice is, infact, to destroy the base.

Laws aren't morality, and the Paragon path isn't a Lawful path. On the DD compass, while Paragon is more or less Good-Neutral, willing to break laws for principle, Samara is purely Lawful. What you deem dishonorable on moral grounds may not be disohonorable on Code grounds, and vice versa.