The institutional terrain in which chaplains operated shifted in moral terms. Until the twenty-first century, the Army was overwhelmingly white, male, heterosexual, Christian and resistant to change. The RAChD did little to challenge that status quo or to combat the racism, sexism and homophobia that arose from it. If, with the same complaisance, it went on to adhere to an externally driven equality and diversity agenda, it had a lot more to say about the ethics of war. Significantly, its Journal aired debates over nuclear weapons and issues of war and peace with surprising freedom. Evidently, killing still raised strong ethical concerns in a professional culture informed by Christian morality and by the just war tradition, with its problematics exacerbated by a growing tangle of legal expectations and constraints. Despite imputations to the contrary, and especially in the complex and controversial counter-insurgency campaigns of the later twentieth century, there is scant evidence to justify the suspicion that unit chaplains, as military pastors, were simply predisposed to connive in the misconduct of soldiers and some clear indications that their influence was one of restraint.