Three Deadly Sins

Or rather, three virtues: courage, honesty, and fidelity. 

Christianity's [seven deadly sins] isn't strictly terrible. Envy and pride are real, serious sins. However, the corresponding virtues could not be more lame; as should be expected for a joy-negative false religion. They can tell only what not to do (disobey), because the point of the structure is to irresponsibly amplify the wills of certain corrupt dictators. If the catechism had its own inherent glory, it would conflict with the ad-hoc dictates. Can't have that.

The three deadly sins are cowardice, falsehood, and treachery. 

If you are a coward, it doesn't matter how wise and responsible you are, because you can't carry out your wise will.

If you are a fool, it doesn't matter how brave or loyal you are, because your will won't be done.

If you are a traitor, it doesn't matter how hearty or smart you are, because you will be alone and unable to hold to any consistent course. 

Cowards, fools, and traitors are never going to make it. The destination is always beyond their reach. 

Christianity's sins have a sort of rhythmic symmetry to them. That's your red flag: it's Sophistry. Rhetoric, designed to be convincing, not to reflect reality. Reality is not symmetric. (P.S. envy and pride are merely sub-categories of falsehood.)

Because the sins are independent, the virtues are not. You must wisely pick who to come to agreements with, and courageously follow through on the terms. You must courageously hold fast to your wise convictions. And.. you must commit to running away, to changing course, when fighting is no longer profitable. Asymmetry.

Courage and fidelity are subject to your intent. Falsehood is not. Asymmetry. Even if you hold the best and highest of intents, if you're incorrect, you're sinning and Gnon will punish you.

Courage and wisdom reward the behaviour directly. Fidelity does not. Asymmetry. In the short term, avoiding responsibility is always more profitable. Agree to nothing and take what's yours, right? Sure, if you enjoy hating yourself, I suppose. 

Truth and responsibility can neither conflict with each other nor with themselves. If one responsibility conflicts with another: you're wrong, it doesn't, you falsely and irresponsibly agreed to something you shouldn't have. Courage easily conflicts with itself. Asymmetry. Is it more brave to fight the enemy, or is it more brave to run away and face the opprobrium of your allies?

You can have fun doing combo virtues if you like. Justice is to courageously enforce the truth on those who would resist it. Humility is to responsibly submit to facts beyond your control. To courageously uphold your agreements when they turn on you is something like sacrifice. 

It doesn't really matter, though. 

Honour is often taken as some kind of social credit score. This is a Sophist smear campaign, because of course it is.
Because any deadly sin is deadly, there is only one distinction worth making: honourable vs. dishonourable. The dishonourable are not good enough. Defecting on the dishonourable - such as by treating them dishonourably - is neither unprofitable nor imprudent, because they cannot cooperate. Nothing is lost.
An honourable person is someone who courageously faces all their true-chosen responsibilities head-on, never flinching from openly and forthrightly doing the things they said they were going to do, and never saying they will do something they shouldn't.

Perhaps there is a fourth virtue, with no corresponding vice: creation. Creation is glorious.