Most cowardly deed in ASOIAF.

[Lady Blizzardborn]

1 minute ago, khal drogon said:

He could have turned to the Starks who are more likely to support the Baratheons in the case of conspiracy involving the death of their beloved Jon Arryn. A hand of the king and the mentor of Ned Stark and Robert is dead and if Stannis raised his suspicion on a political conspiracy that caused his death and he knew the reason why don't you think they would have at least considered it? If he wanted anyone's help to convince Robert he has to turn to none other than Ned Stark. But he was more concerned about him not getting the position of the hand than his duty to the king. I don't see how Stannis bringing on an armed conflict would have led to the best solution while Robert is alive. Won't he become more untrustworthy in front of Robert if he came with an army? Also if Lannisters wanted to target him next they could never do it openly and they could poison him anywhere even in Dragonstone. Even if he wanted to protect himself his primary objective is ensuring a fair succession and he has a duty to his king . And if that has to happen the king must be alive. He himself knew if he delayed things any further Robert will be in danger. I don't see why amassing an army is a priority to him than the danger that Lannisters pose to the Baratheons. And that move is only going to complicate things than resolve it.

You're writing as if you know Stannis' actual thoughts when we don't.

Working with Ned is a good idea yes, unless Ned is in King's Landing where it's dangerous. Jon was in KL. Jon found out the truth. Jon ended up dead. Not actually by Lannister hands but none of our players knew who really did it.

Stannis didn't have to bring on an armed conflict. He had to have some form of protection in case the Lannisters did try to bump him off and it's not like he has a region full of vassals upon whom he could call for that. The Lord of the Stormlands for instance has a much larger support base than the Lord of Dragonstone does. As things turned out, Robert would have been far better served if he had allowed Stannis to retain the title of Stormlord so that after Joffrey was born Dragonstone could go to the heir as it traditionally should have anyway. 

No, they couldn't poison him easily on Dragonstone. He has his own people and his own maester there, and he'd be on the lookout for that kind of thing because poison is how Jon was killed.

Again, without Stannis' POV we do not know his primary objective.  But his duty to the king is first and foremost to keep the king from danger if possible. As long as Robert doesn't know the truth he is relatively safe. Anyone who knows the truth without the Lannisters knowing they know is also safe. Ned would have been safe, to a point at least, if he'd kept his mouth shut.

You're assuming he knew. Actually Renly's little plan to get Robert to set Cersei aside and marry Margaery put the king in more danger than Stannis' knowing anything. Even without the twincest, House Lannister would not have gone for that.

[Lady Blizzardborn]

12 minutes ago, Jon's Queen Consort said:

I was kidding.

Ah. Sorry I missed that. 

[khal drogon]

4 minutes ago, Lady Blizzardborn said:

You're writing as if you know Stannis' actual thoughts when we don't.

Working with Ned is a good idea yes, unless Ned is in King's Landing where it's dangerous. Jon was in KL. Jon found out the truth. Jon ended up dead. Not actually by Lannister hands but none of our players knew who really did it.

Stannis didn't have to bring on an armed conflict. He had to have some form of protection in case the Lannisters did try to bump him off and it's not like he has a region full of vassals upon whom he could call for that. The Lord of the Stormlands for instance has a much larger support base than the Lord of Dragonstone does. As things turned out, Robert would have been far better served if he had allowed Stannis to retain the title of Stormlord so that after Joffrey was born Dragonstone could go to the heir as it traditionally should have anyway. 

No, they couldn't poison him easily on Dragonstone. He has his own people and his own maester there, and he'd be on the lookout for that kind of thing because poison is how Jon was killed.

Again, without Stannis' POV we do not know his primary objective.  But his duty to the king is first and foremost to keep the king from danger if possible. As long as Robert doesn't know the truth he is relatively safe. Anyone who knows the truth without the Lannisters knowing they know is also safe. Ned would have been safe, to a point at least, if he'd kept his mouth shut.

You're assuming he knew. Actually Renly's little plan to get Robert to set Cersei aside and marry Margaery put the king in more danger than Stannis' knowing anything. Even without the twincest, House Lannister would not have gone for that.. 

I don't see how you came to the conclusion that Robert is relatively safe. By the version known to Stannis he knew Lannisters knew he knew the truth and hence his need to protect himself. The Lannisters can't let this go too long. If they couldn't touch Stannis their next course of action will be getting rid of Robert as soon as possible before he learns the truth. So Stannis has to risk it at some point of time if he wanted to prevent Robert's death which he never did. My point is not against him getting protected. But is building an army is really going to be prudent. He could not afford to delay as the Lannisters are not going to wait if they knew he is building an army. In that case how quickly Robert learns the truth it will save him. But we didn't see Stannis acting quickly nor did he seek any help. His suspicious delay is what makes his decisions questionable. We don't need a POV of him to understand these.

[Adam Yozza]

Walder Frey and his Red Wedding

Theon and the Miller Boys

Karstark and the Lannister squire's

Ramsay and his hunts

Joffrey in general

[Jasta11]

Tough one.

From a moral cowardice standpoint, I think I'll have to go with Theon killing two innocent boys just to save face with the people of Winterfel.

From a physical standpoint... not cowardice per se, but I always found Joffrey ordering his guards to beat up Sansa to be especially despicable. Not that it would be much better if he did it himself, but he's too much of a little shithead to even do the deed himself.

[Raisin' Bran]

I will support Theon for this title. Two very innocent boys and their mother died because Theon needed to show he meant business.

[kissdbyfire]

17 minutes ago, Jasta11 said:

Tough one.

From a moral cowardice standpoint, I think I'll have to go with Theon killing two innocent boys just to save face with the people of Winterfel.

From a physical standpoint... not cowardice per se, but I always found Joffrey ordering his guards to beat up Sansa to be especially despicable. Not that it would be much better if he did it himself, but he's too much of a little shithead to even do the deed himself.

 

5 minutes ago, Raisin' Bran said:

I will support Theon for this title. Two very innocent boys and their mother died because Theon needed to show he meant business.

Yeah, up there at the top. And it's so sad, because at first he really doesn't get it. He keeps thinking the boys he killed weren't Bran and Rickon, it's 'ok'. But later on in Dance he starts to admit to himself that it was despicable. 

[Makk]

I have never naturally equated evil with cowardice, I think it is a very misused term when people do. I do think Theon's act does sort of fit the bill, you could argue that he was so afraid of his reputation, appearing to be foolish and not an Ironborn, that he did something abhorrent. What's important when judging whether this is cowardly instead of simply evil, is to examine what he was thinking and just how morally abhorrent he found killing the miller's boys to be. Although he wouldn't normally go around killing little boys, I still don't think he placed any particular value on their lives. Thus although he was worried about his reputation, he just took what action he considered best to protect it. 

The same with Walder Frey and the Red Wedding. He wanted vengeance for a slight and so he took the fastest and cruelest way of getting it. I don't consider it cowardly, yes he could have met Robb in battle but not being brave and stupid does not make you a coward. 

Sam, Joffery and Cersei are the most cowardly imo. Now Sam is a good gentle guy, and he seems to be developing a touch, but for much off his life he has feinted at the sight of blood, allowed himself to be bullied, and not stood up for his own hopes and dreams at all. There were multiple times where he would rather give up and die rather than get up and try. He does seem to be on an upward spiral in terms of his arc though, he has at least started to stand up for others he cares about, now he just needs to start doing it naturally for himself.

Joffery has displayed cowardice multiple times and it is hard to pick his worst one. Retreating from the battle at the blackwater is definitely a good candidate but so is the way he allows Tyrion to cower him on multiple occasions. He is the king and Tyrion is much less politically powerful than he is, whenever there wasn't someone suitable to support him (like the hound or his mother) he was really scared of Tyrion. He realised that and it was why he hated Tyrion so much. Also funny when Arya threw Lionspaw in the river but I guess being scared of a direwolf is at least understandable.

Cersei could be fearless about some things but utterly cowardly about others. She ordered Joffery to come in during the blackwater just because she was so scared about losing him even when she was counselled otherwise and assured he was under little danger. The other big thing is living her entire life in fear of a prophecy. Now she does have some reason to fear, the witch had proven to have some power, but she has no reason to believe the witch and doesn't even understand what the prophecy means. 

 

[No one is here]

Theon's murder of the "mill boys" comes to mind as pretty cowardly.

[Adam Yozza]

@Makk While I see where you're coming from, and while I don't equate evilness with cowardice, I'm going to have to disagree with your point about the Red Wedding.

While it was definitely morally reprehensible, as I'm sure most will agree, I would also label it as pretty cowardly. It would be one thing to lie to Robb and tell him there would be a wedding, only to betray him the minute he walked through the gates, or do the same as he leaves afterwards or even to turn on him in battle. All three are scummy thing to do, no doubt, but at least it would give the Northmen a fighting chance. The fact that Frey would only take this one chance to have his revenge when he had the backing of the Bolton's, Karstark's, Lannister's and Tyrell's and even then only when Robb's men were drunk and vulnerable in the belief that they were safe under guest right just screams cowardice to me.

Also consider that the Frey's alone could raise 4000 men at least, and the 3500 infantry that arrived at the Twins were Lannister men now, then Frey meeting Robb in battle wouldn't be stupid, because he would outnumber Robb's cavalry force nearly two to one and would have the element of surprise on their side. It would be both honorable (sort of, I guess?) and is a way of getting revenge that wouldn't have the Frey's blacklisted as the scum of Westeros by damn near everyone. So, yes, the RW was a cowardly act.

[Tianzi]

1 hour ago, Makk said:

I have never naturally equated evil with cowardice, I think it is a very misused term when people do. I do think Theon's act does sort of fit the bill, you could argue that he was so afraid of his reputation, appearing to be foolish and not an Ironborn, that he did something abhorrent. What's important when judging whether this is cowardly instead of simply evil, is to examine what he was thinking and just how morally abhorrent he found killing the miller's boys to be. Although he wouldn't normally go around killing little boys, I still don't think he placed any particular value on their lives. Thus although he was worried about his reputation, he just took what action he considered best to protect it. 

The same with Walder Frey and the Red Wedding. He wanted vengeance for a slight and so he took the fastest and cruelest way of getting it. I don't consider it cowardly, yes he could have met Robb in battle but not being brave and stupid does not make you a coward. 

Sam, Joffery and Cersei are the most cowardly imo. Now Sam is a good gentle guy, and he seems to be developing a touch, but for much off his life he has feinted at the sight of blood, allowed himself to be bullied, and not stood up for his own hopes and dreams at all. There were multiple times where he would rather give up and die rather than get up and try. He does seem to be on an upward spiral in terms of his arc though, he has at least started to stand up for others he cares about, now he just needs to start doing it naturally for himself.

Joffery has displayed cowardice multiple times and it is hard to pick his worst one. Retreating from the battle at the blackwater is definitely a good candidate but so is the way he allows Tyrion to cower him on multiple occasions. He is the king and Tyrion is much less politically powerful than he is, whenever there wasn't someone suitable to support him (like the hound or his mother) he was really scared of Tyrion. He realised that and it was why he hated Tyrion so much. Also funny when Arya threw Lionspaw in the river but I guess being scared of a direwolf is at least understandable.

Cersei could be fearless about some things but utterly cowardly about others. She ordered Joffery to come in during the blackwater just because she was so scared about losing him even when she was counselled otherwise and assured he was under little danger. The other big thing is living her entire life in fear of a prophecy. Now she does have some reason to fear, the witch had proven to have some power, but she has no reason to believe the witch and doesn't even understand what the prophecy means. 

 

Totally different opinion on Theon. I don't equate cowardice with evil either, and I listed him exactly because at that point he was losing his shit, control of the situation and basically was going against himself out of fear for his image. Same with threatening to hang Beth Cassel. Had Ramsay done the same thing, I wouldn't call him a coward, because he'd just done it before brekfast jus for fun. Same with Tywin, who would do it out of pragmatism. There is doing something rational and then there is doing something cowardly and then rationalize.

Also disagree on Cersei, whom I'd generally call brave in a stupid kind of way. During Blackwater it was more of a case of desperation, drunkeness and insanity, it's clear that she's just lost hope (like many of the others) and didn't give a shit. Prophecy... she actually had reasons to fear it, starting with her marraige to a king, his bastards, her bastards, etc., and yet held pretty well until the grizzly part started kicking in (for example she clearly wasn't paranoid over Sansa, even though she was a good material for the younger and more beautiful queen).

Agree with Walder Frey, he was vengenful and dishonorable, but not really cowardly. Maybe deciding to do it after receiving cover from Tywin could coun't as such, but it was just reasonable.

4 hours ago, Adam Yozza said:

Walder Frey and his Red Wedding

Theon and the Miller Boys

Karstark and the Lannister squire's

Ramsay and his hunts

Joffrey in general

Killing defenseless boys is pretty ugly, but Karstark actually held his ground and faced consequences, so I wouldn't really call him a coward.

Ramsay hunts peasant girls, but it's also shown that he'd perfectly willing to treat similarly more valuable people (eg: Lady Dustin, "Arya"), even if it shows his stupidity. So he'd be probably willing to face dangers for his actions as well.

[Adam Yozza]

15 minutes ago, Tianzi said:

Agree with Walder Frey, he was vengenful and dishonorable, but not really cowardly. Maybe deciding to do it after receiving cover from Tywin could coun't as such, but it was just reasonable.

Killing defenseless boys is pretty ugly, but Karstark actually held his ground and faced consequences, so I wouldn't really call him a coward.

Ramsay hunts peasant girls, but it's also shown that he'd perfectly willing to treat similarly more valuable people (eg: Lady Dustin, "Arya"), even if it shows his stupidity. So he'd be probably willing to face dangers for his actions as well.

Completely disagree on Frey. Betraying Robb, though scummy, isn't cowardly in itself I agree. The manner he did it in is, though. He not only had the advantage in a way that's not even funny; home field, element of surprise, the fact that he could raise a force that outnumbered Robb's two to one, had the political and military backing of the Lannister-Tyrell alliance; but he still required incentives before he'd go through with it (Riverrun and marriages) and even then he would only do it when his opponents were drunk and under the protection of Guest Right.

I give him credit for taking his punishment like a champ, but the fact that he required eight men to kill two unarmed squires doesn't seem very brave.

Ramsay hunts terrified girls. Again, some elements of it show bravery (or stupidity) in that he doesn't care about their status, but he'd never hunt someone who could fight back. Pink Letter, if written by Ramsay as I suspect it is, is slightly different circumstance's. 

[Lady Blizzardborn]

6 hours ago, khal drogon said:

I don't see how you came to the conclusion that Robert is relatively safe. By the version known to Stannis he knew Lannisters knew he knew the truth and hence his need to protect himself. The Lannisters can't let this go too long. If they couldn't touch Stannis their next course of action will be getting rid of Robert as soon as possible before he learns the truth. So Stannis has to risk it at some point of time if he wanted to prevent Robert's death which he never did. My point is not against him getting protected. But is building an army is really going to be prudent. He could not afford to delay as the Lannisters are not going to wait if they knew he is building an army. In that case how quickly Robert learns the truth it will save him. But we didn't see Stannis acting quickly nor did he seek any help. His suspicious delay is what makes his decisions questionable. We don't need a POV of him to understand these.

I come to the conclusion because Robert is not going to learn the truth as long as the Lannisters bump off people like Jon.  If Stannis leaves KL, he's obviously NOT telling Robert, and nobody else knows at that point. If no one is around who can tell Robert, Robert is safe. Because everybody knows Robert isn't putting this puzzle together on his own. It's not like everyone in Westeros or even in King's Landing could put two and two together on the golden kids not being Baratheons, and the people who are most likely to figure it out are the ones least likely to do anything with that knowledge (like Littlefinger who doesn't care who's in charge as long as he guts a cut).

Stannis isn't building an army to start with. He's building a safety cushion, because he lacks a large network of vassals who owe him their allegiance and protection. All he has is a dinky little island and what few people of importance (if any) live there, Davos, and a couple of his wife's relatives. He doesn't start building an actual army until later, and at that point he needs one.

Men like Stannis don't act quickly. Men like Robert act quickly.

He might have been about seek help when events spiraled out of control. As has been pointed out in this thread the most logical choices for back-up should be Ned (killed in a very short time) and Renly (crowned himself king without even knowing the truth about the kids).

I don't see it as a suspicious delay. I see it as taking his time to figure things out and not doing anything hasty that would get his brother and others killed. You know, like Ned did when he want to warn Cersei.

[khal drogon]

2 hours ago, Lady Blizzardborn said:

I come to the conclusion because Robert is not going to learn the truth as long as the Lannisters bump off people like Jon.  If Stannis leaves KL, he's obviously NOT telling Robert, and nobody else knows at that point. If no one is around who can tell Robert, Robert is safe. Because everybody knows Robert isn't putting this puzzle together on his own. It's not like everyone in Westeros or even in King's Landing could put two and two together on the golden kids not being Baratheons, and the people who are most likely to figure it out are the ones least likely to do anything with that knowledge (like Littlefinger who doesn't care who's in charge as long as he guts a cut).

Stannis isn't building an army to start with. He's building a safety cushion, because he lacks a large network of vassals who owe him their allegiance and protection. All he has is a dinky little island and what few people of importance (if any) live there, Davos, and a couple of his wife's relatives. He doesn't start building an actual army until later, and at that point he needs one.

Men like Stannis don't act quickly. Men like Robert act quickly.

He might have been about seek help when events spiraled out of control. As has been pointed out in this thread the most logical choices for back-up should be Ned (killed in a very short time) and Renly (crowned himself king without even knowing the truth about the kids).

I don't see it as a suspicious delay. I see it as taking his time to figure things out and not doing anything hasty that would get his brother and others killed. You know, like Ned did when he want to warn Cersei. H

Do you think the Lannisters would wait for Stannis to build a protective cushion before he tells the truth? Won't they try to prevent their exposition? If silencing Stannis is not an option the next best option is to kill Robert, the only person who could punish them. It is exactly what happened. Cersei would have slipped poison in Robert's wine if she knew Stannis is coming. Yes he needs protection which I accept but also he needs to risk at some point of time.

Your last paragraph doesn't make sense without knowing his POV. We don't know his thoughts. But his words don't give an impression that he wanted to save Robert. It is all about Robert giving Stormlands to Renly or that he made Ned hand. 

[Lady Blizzardborn]

9 minutes ago, khal drogon said:

Do you think the Lannisters would wait for Stannis to build a protective cushion before he tells the truth? Won't they try to prevent their exposition? If silencing Stannis is not an option the next best option is to kill Robert, the only person who could punish them. It is exactly what happened. Cersei would have slipped poison in Robert's wine if she knew Stannis is coming. Yes he needs protection which I accept but also he needs to risk at some point of time.

Your last paragraph doesn't make sense without knowing his POV. We don't know his thoughts. But his words don't give an impression that he wanted to save Robert. It is all about Robert giving Stormlands to Renly or that he made Ned hand. 

The protective cushion is to keep him alive. Trying to prevent him from telling Robert doesn't have to include killing Robert. It would be far more effective to start a subtle Stannis-smearing campaign, which would be highly effective given that Robert doesn't even like Stannis. Make him look bad from a distance, suggest they wouldn't put it past him to start making up crazy stories to try and look more important, etc. Then if Stannis does try and tell Robert the truth, he won't pay any attention, and neither will anyone else. 

My last paragraph is based on the temperament of the character, which can be ascertained without having his POV. I'm not suggesting he was crying on the inside and devising Jack-Sparrow-like rescue tactics to save his brother, but he's not entirely coldhearted either and he's very big on duty--his duty was to protect his brother and king, and he did that the best he knew how at the time.

You're right, we don't know his thoughts. So it's inaccurate to say with any certainty that it was all about Renly getting the Stormlands, and Ned being offered the HotK job first.

I'm not saying Stannis did everything right, or couldn't have done better, but his actions were definitely not on par with things like Theon murdering two innocent kids to save face.

[devilish]

On 10/02/2017 at 8:08 PM, aryagonnakill#2 said:

I think that is more stupidity or some other obsession with prophecy rather than cowardice, he did fight Robert 1vs1, takes guts.

Probably Joffrey not fighting to defend his kingdom/having his kingsguard beat Sansa.

Aerion Brightflame turning his accusation against Dunk into a trial by 7 also ranks up there.  Along with the greens taking the throne in such an underhanded way.

I have my doubts about that. Rhaegar should have never been left in a position to go toe to toe against Robert in the first place. 

[rotting sea cow]

12 hours ago, Makk said:

Joffery has displayed cowardice multiple times and it is hard to pick his worst one. Retreating from the battle at the blackwater is definitely a good candidate

 

15 hours ago, Adam Yozza said:

Joffrey in general

Turns out this is wrong. I just re-read the Black Water chapters and Joffrey wanted to stay on the walls. It was Cersei who ordered to be brought back to the Red Keep. For once Joffrey behaved.

Otherwise he is a shitty character. Ordering the beatings to Sansa is certainly among of the most cowards acts in the series.

[Adam Yozza]

1 hour ago, rotting sea cow said:

 

Turns out this is wrong. I just re-read the Black Water chapters and Joffrey wanted to stay on the walls. It was Cersei who ordered to be brought back to the Red Keep. For once Joffrey behaved.

Otherwise he is a shitty character. Ordering the beatings to Sansa is certainly among of the most cowards acts in the series.

Joffrey wanted to stay on the Walls, true, but he was never in any danger. Everything we know about his character implies that the second he came face to face with any of Stannis' troops he would have broke. But yes I was referring mostly to his ordering the Kingsguard to beat Sansa.

[Tianzi]

13 hours ago, Adam Yozza said:

I give him credit for taking his punishment like a champ, but the fact that he required eight men to kill two unarmed squires doesn't seem very brave.

It's still difficult to think that he thought: 'Gee, if I took less men, those two teenage boys would kick my ass'. He just wanted his murder to be done swiftly.

 

13 hours ago, Adam Yozza said:

Ramsay hunts terrified girls. Again, some elements of it show bravery (or stupidity) in that he doesn't care about their status, but he'd never hunt someone who could fight back. Pink Letter, if written by Ramsay as I suspect it is, is slightly different circumstance's. 

In those terms hunting defenseless animals would be an act of cowardice too. Ramsay hunts defenseless girls because it's his sick idea of fun, but similarly as Karstark, he doesn't seem to be afraid of a confrontation that could be a consequence of this. And I might not remember well his book portrayal and be affected by his TV Villain Sue version, but he didn't struck me as someone who is afraid of a fight.

 

13 hours ago, Adam Yozza said:

Completely disagree on Frey. Betraying Robb, though scummy, isn't cowardly in itself I agree. The manner he did it in is, though. He not only had the advantage in a way that's not even funny; home field, element of surprise, the fact that he could raise a force that outnumbered Robb's two to one, had the political and military backing of the Lannister-Tyrell alliance; but he still required incentives before he'd go through with it (Riverrun and marriages) and even then he would only do it when his opponents were drunk and under the protection of Guest Right.

He is the strongest case of the three, but I'd still place my bet on a mixture of him being vicious, wanting to see it personally, and ensuring that the right people are offed (let's not forget Tywin's imput in this plan). House Frey is full of slimeballs however, so I'd agree that many members involved in RW might have preferred it over going to a battle for cowardly reasons.

[Adam Yozza]

3 hours ago, Tianzi said:

It's still difficult to think that he thought: 'Gee, if I took less men, those two teenage boys would kick my ass'. He just wanted his murder to be done swiftly.

 

In those terms hunting defenseless animals would be an act of cowardice too. Ramsay hunts defenseless girls because it's his sick idea of fun, but similarly as Karstark, he doesn't seem to be afraid of a confrontation that could be a consequence of this. And I might not remember well his book portrayal and be affected by his TV Villain Sue version, but he didn't struck me as someone who is afraid of a fight.

 

He is the strongest case of the three, but I'd still place my bet on a mixture of him being vicious, wanting to see it personally, and ensuring that the right people are offed (let's not forget Tywin's imput in this plan). House Frey is full of slimeballs however, so I'd agree that many members involved in RW might have preferred it over going to a battle for cowardly reasons.

Maybe

I wouldn't say he's afraid of a fight by any means and I agree it's his idea of fun, so he's easily the weakest case I presented. But at the same time he doesn't play games with those who are actually a threat. Given Ramsey's level of stupidity, it doesn't seem like the sort that would care if the prey could put up a challenge, yet he only hunts terrified young girls. We never see him try to hunt or play games with anyone who could pose any sort of danger. I will acknowledge, though, that this may be more caution and pragmatism than cowardice.

With the Red Wedding alone, maybe I could be swayed. But when you combine his reluctance to take revenge until his enemy was both drunk, off guard and outnumbered with his failure to pick a side in the rebellion and his refusal to help the Tully's until he had the Stark's backing him just gives me the impression of a coward. I can however see how some may interpret this as ruthlessness and pragmatism rather than cowardice, though.