Most cowardly deed in ASOIAF.

[Jon's Queen Consort]

15 hours ago, Tianzi said:

So he is the one to decide how to reward or punish. Back to square one.

In Robert's case we can list 'hateful because Targaryens' and 'glad someone did the dirty work for him' right before 'smart enough'.

Again, Robert was one of them and if it was so serious about everyone and if everyone cared everyone would had said something. But no one said anything. Only Ned. Why? Why only Ned who was simply stupid about how politics work said anything?

15 hours ago, Tianzi said:

I gave it as one example of how he sucked in punishing the crimes committed when he was the King, not just before. Want to add more? Fine with me.

You gave an example about a crime that happened before he became the King. The children were killed before he became the King.

15 hours ago, Tianzi said:

When?

Just like in Robert's case, before Robb becoming the King.

15 hours ago, Tianzi said:

Big yay for the psychopath Cersei then.

She may is what you call psychopath but she is right. The Crown Prince was injured that couldn't go unpunished.

[ravenous reader]

14 hours ago, Jon's Queen Consort said:

She may is what you call psychopath but she is right. The Crown Prince was injured that couldn't go unpunished.

Your take on your own OP seems to have diverged from its original question!

@Jon's Queen Consort:  Generally, I tend to agree with @Tianzi here.  Perhaps it would be helpful to separate two things I've noticed you conflating (mixing up), namely: 

1. cowardice 
2. explanation for that cowardice

Just because someone's cowardice can be understood, rationalized, and justified to a certain extent does not make it any less cowardly (just as your justification given above for Cersei's psychopathic actions fails to undo her psychopathy).  In fact, cowardice is usually quite comprehensible, since human beings in the interests of self-preservation are predisposed to avoid their own discomfort (rather than embrace it) as demonstrated by Robert Baratheon's tendency to seek his own ease and pleasure, at the expense of others, as a rule.  For example, it would've created problems for Robert (financial and other) to have Tywin as an enemy, so instead of standing up to him he predictably chose to placate him (and by association his extended Lannister family) at every occasion.

Being brave is stressful, disciplined work-- not really something Robert was up for -- as Ned impresses upon Bran:

Quote

A Game of Thrones - Bran I

So deep in thought was he that he never heard the rest of the party until his father moved up to ride beside him. "Are you well, Bran?" he asked, not unkindly.

"Yes, Father," Bran told him. He looked up. Wrapped in his furs and leathers, mounted on his great warhorse, his lord father loomed over him like a giant. "Robb says the man died bravely, but Jon says he was afraid."

"What do you think?" his father asked.

Bran thought about it. "Can a man still be brave if he's afraid?"

"That is the only time a man can be brave," his father told him. "Do you understand why I did it?"

"He was a wildling," Bran said. "They carry off women and sell them to the Others."

His lord father smiled. "Old Nan has been telling you stories again. In truth, the man was an oathbreaker, a deserter from the Night's Watch. No man is more dangerous. The deserter knows his life is forfeit if he is taken, so he will not flinch from any crime, no matter how vile. But you mistake me. The question was not why the man had to die, but why I must do it."

Bran had no answer for that. "King Robert has a headsman," he said, uncertainly.

"He does," his father admitted. "As did the Targaryen kings before him. Yet our way is the older way. The blood of the First Men still flows in the veins of the Starks, and we hold to the belief that the man who passes the sentence should swing the sword. If you would take a man's life, you owe it to him to look into his eyes and hear his final words. And if you cannot bear to do that, then perhaps the man does not deserve to die.

The dirty truth is Robert went to war because he enjoyed killing people -- it was invigorating sport for him and he was good at it-- not because it was the hard but necessary 'right' thing to do.  When killing -- or decisions surrounding killing -- were no longer fun for him, he invariably deferred such prickly dilemmas of conscience to others, shamefully averted his eyes, and scurried away to drown his momentary spark of confusion in one vice or another:

Quote

A Game of Thrones - Eddard IV

Ned rose and paced the length of the room. "If the queen had a role in this or, gods forbid, the king himself … no, I will not believe that." Yet even as he said the words, he remembered that chill morning on the barrowlands, and Robert's talk of sending hired knives after the Targaryen princess. He remembered Rhaegar's infant son, the red ruin of his skull, and the way the king had turned away, as he had turned away in Darry's audience hall not so long ago. He could still hear Sansa pleading, as Lyanna had pleaded once.

"Most likely the king did not know," Littlefinger said. "It would not be the first time. Our good Robert is practiced at closing his eyes to things he would rather not see."

Ned had no reply for that. The face of the butcher's boy swam up before his eyes, cloven almost in two, and afterward the king had said not a word. His head was pounding.

I understand Robert Baratheon's thought process perfectly.  Taking the path of least resistance (including trying to avoid the ire of a nagging wife) is all too human.  While his actions may be reasonable, however, that does not make him more brave nor his actions less morally reprehensible.

Also, the argument that he's 'just as bad' as other people who are doing or would have done the same; or alternatively that he's 'not as bad' as other people who are demonstrably, grossly more cruel is also not proof of anyone's cowardice or lack thereof.  

14 hours ago, Jon's Queen Consort said:

You gave an example about a crime that happened before he became the King. The children were killed before he became the King.

More accurately:

The children were killed so that he could become King, as a de facto necessary condition for his becoming king.  His legitimacy is founded on the murder of the Targaryen children (this is why he's so obsessively keen to have the other 'dragonspawn' who slipped through his net eliminated -- Dany's ongoing existence poses a direct threat to the security of his power).  You cannot divorce the murder of the children from Robert's ascension to power -- especially considering he swiftly proceeded to reward the murderers for what they'd done for him by pardoning, promoting, and marrying into the Lannister family, as well as turning a blind eye to the incest taking place under his nose.

Again, Robert's refusal to take responsibility for crimes essentially committed in his name, and from which he directly or indirectly benefited, is a sign of abject cowardice and lax leadership.

Let's not forget Mycah, the 'butcher's boy' -- and the 'butcher' in whose name he was killed, Robert Baratheon:

Quote

The face of the butcher's boy swam up before his eyes, cloven almost in two, and afterward the king had said not a word.

 

[Jon's Queen Consort]

Other notable candidates for most cowardly deeds are for me the careers of Aerys II’s KG, minus maybe Jaime’s. For me, Gerold Hightower, Arthur Dayne, Oswell Whent, Jonothor Darry, Barristan Selmy and Lewyn Martell were moral cowards and the fact that as members of the KG broke their knight's code prove that.

On 23/2/2017 at 5:49 AM, ravenous reader said:

The children were killed so that he could become King, 

Utter . The children were killed by Tywin and Tywin alone, it had nothing to do with Robert.

[Tianzi]

On 22.02.2017 at 2:16 PM, Jon's Queen Consort said:

Again, Robert was one of them and if it was so serious about everyone and if everyone cared everyone would had said something. But no one said anything. Only Ned. Why? Why only Ned who was simply stupid about how politics work said anything?

But we are talking about moral backbone and civil courage here, so Ned displayed it here, while Robert didn't (though probably behaved more pragmatic).

On 22.02.2017 at 2:16 PM, Jon's Queen Consort said:

You gave an example about a crime that happened before he became the King. The children were killed before he became the King.

How is Robert shitting on the fact that his KG (Jaime) wounded Ned an example of a crime that happened before he became King? Because that's where this particular exchange started from. Point: he sucked at reacting to the crimes comitted at any point, not only 'before he became king'.

On 22.02.2017 at 2:16 PM, Jon's Queen Consort said:

Just like in Robert's case, before Robb becoming the King.

You are avoiding the answer, so let me guess: sometime before Robb was even born or when he was a baby, and the next ruler of Hoster for next 10+ year was going to be... *drumroll* Robert?

On 22.02.2017 at 2:16 PM, Jon's Queen Consort said:

She may is what you call psychopath but she is right. The Crown Prince was injured that couldn't go unpunished.

As I said, it doesn't matter whether she was right or wrong. Robert let her have her way because she whipped him to do it.

Oh, and it actually went unpunished. Nobody nearly close to be the actual culprit got punished.

15 minutes ago, Jon's Queen Consort said:

Utter . The children were killed by Tywin and Tywin alone, it had nothing to do with Robert.

Actually they were killed by Gregor Clegane and Armory Lorch.

And not any bullshit by far, the children were killed for the security of Robert sitting on the throne. He didn't give the order, but he de facto gave his blessing once Tywin did it.

 

So no, sorry. Robert was far for being the worst person in the series or being responsible for everything that happened during his reign, but as the King he was a cowardly loser constantly running away for any responsibility, turning his head the other way and whining and blaming everyone else on everything that went wrong. And he was actually deep down completely aware he was shit as the King, even comparing himself to Aerys on his deathbed (to which Ned could only heklpfully say: 'Not as bad as Aerys').

[Jon's Queen Consort]

3 minutes ago, Tianzi said:

And not any bullshit by far, the children were killed for the security of Robert sitting on the throne. He didn't give the order, but he de facto gave his blessing once Tywin did it.

Not true. They were killed by Tywin in order to save Tywin's neck. Again, did Robert had to punish every crime that happened before he became the King?

[Tianzi]

Just now, Jon's Queen Consort said:

Not true. They were killed by Tywin in order to save Tywin's neck. Again, did Robert had to punish every crime that happened before he became the King?

Oh, and why was that particular move supposed to save Tywin's neck?

Maybe because that particular move was exactly what Robert needed for a. security of the throne b. avoiding the blame because a bad guy did the dirty work for him? (cowardice) We have it actually spelled out by Tywin in the books, and Robert happily accepted the gift, thus proving Tywin right.

[Jon's Queen Consort]

1 minute ago, Tianzi said:

Oh, and why was that particular move supposed to save Tywin's neck?

Maybe because that particular move was exactly what Robert needed for a. security of the throne b. avoiding the blame because a bad guy did the dirty work for him? (cowardice) We have it actually spelled out by Tywin in the books, and Robert happily accepted the gift, thus proving Tywin right.

Because that way Tywin proved his loyalty. He even said so. He said it that he had to prove his loyalty and that Robert would had never done it.

[Tianzi]

1 minute ago, Jon's Queen Consort said:

Because that way Tywin proved his loyalty.

Exactly. Proving loyalty to Robert required murdering children. And he accepted this proof.

2 minutes ago, Jon's Queen Consort said:

He said it that he had to prove his loyalty and that Robert would had never done it.

Himself, maybe. (although Tywin didn't actually say it, he only said that he'd be uncomfortable with that because it would scratch his 'heroic' image)  But having someone do it for him, yes, please.

[Jon's Queen Consort]

Just now, Tianzi said:

Exactly. Proving loyalty to Robert required murdering children. And he accepted this proof.

Not his loyalty to Robert, saying that he wasn't loyal to the Targaryens anymore. It's not the same.

1 minute ago, Tianzi said:

Himself, maybe. (although Tywin didn't actually say it, he only said that he'd be uncomfortable with that because it would scratch his 'heroic' image)  But having someone do it for him, yes, please.

Yet it was Tywin's actions and not Robert's. Robert had no saying at this and could had done nothing to stop or change it.

[Tianzi]

2 minutes ago, Jon's Queen Consort said:

Not his loyalty to Robert, saying that he wasn't loyal to the Targaryens anymore. It's not the same.

Sigh.

Quote

We had come late to Robert's cause. It was necessary to demonstrate our loyalty. When I laid those bodies before the throne, no man could doubt that we had forsaken House Targaryen forever. And Robert's relief was palpable. As stupid as he was, even he knew that Rhaegar's children had to die if his throne was ever to be secure. Yet he saw himself as a hero, and heroes do not kill children

Oh, and also, no opinion from Tywin that 'Robert would never do it'. Only that he was happy that someone else did it instead.

5 minutes ago, Jon's Queen Consort said:

Yet it was Tywin's actions and not Robert's. Robert had no saying at this and could had done nothing to stop or change it.

For the 534899th time: it was about his reaction to this. Which was basically saying: 'Good, job, T-dawg'.

[Jon's Queen Consort]

3 minutes ago, Tianzi said:

Sigh.

Yes so? He never said that he was loyal to him, he said that he had to save himself.

4 minutes ago, Tianzi said:

Oh, and also, no opinion from Tywin that 'Robert would never do it'. Only that he was happy that someone else did it instead.

It wasn't told that Robert would had done it either.

4 minutes ago, Tianzi said:

For the 534899th time: it was about his reaction to this. Which was basically saying: 'Good, job, T-dawg'.

For the 534899th time; why he had to react in any other way and what it would had change?

[Tianzi]

12 minutes ago, Jon's Queen Consort said:

Yes so? He never said that he was loyal to him, he said that he had to save himself.

He said he wanted to demonstrate his loyalty to Robert. The demonstration was good enough to be accepted by Robert.

Tywin bought Robert's favor with some kid carcass. Because Tywin assumed that's what Robert would have wanted, only that he wouldn't want to do it himself because he viewed himself as a hero. And Robert's reaction proved Tywin right.

12 minutes ago, Jon's Queen Consort said:

It wasn't told that Robert would had done it either.

You were the one who raised the point that 'Robert would never do it', which turned out not to have any basis in the text.

12 minutes ago, Jon's Queen Consort said:

For the 534899th time; why he had to react in any other way and what it would had change?

Because punishing crimes?

But wait, we've already established that Robert kind of sucked at this. So actually he acted completely in his (not so impressive) character.

The difference between Tywin and Robert: Tywin owns being a shitbag, because Tywin has a spine. Robert hides behind men like Tywin. That's why we discuss Robert, not Tywin in a topic about cowardice.

[Robert Baratheon's hammer]

Tywin did what needed to be done.

[Jon's Queen Consort]

4 minutes ago, Tianzi said:

Because punishing crimes?

Again; punishing crimes that had happened before he became the King? Did he supposed to punish all the crimes that heve happened in Westersos before him too?

5 minutes ago, Tianzi said:

You were the one who raised the point that 'Robert would never do it', which turned out not to have any basis in the text.

Because that is what everything points too.

5 minutes ago, Tianzi said:

He said he wanted to demonstrate his loyalty to Robert. The demonstration was good enough to be accepted by Robert.

Yes, when he killed the last Targs he proved he wasn't loyal to the Targs anymore.

6 minutes ago, Tianzi said:

Tywin bought Robert's favor with some kid carcass. Because Tywin assumed that's what Robert would have wanted, only that he wouldn't want to do it himself because he viewed himself as a hero. And Robert's reaction proved Tywin right.

Again why Robert had to punish some crimes that had happened during wartime against his enemies before he became the King?

[khal drogon]

I love Cersei Lannister for doing what needs to be done. Killing an asshole king. I would always love her for that.

[Tianzi]

5 minutes ago, Robert Baratheon's hammer said:

Tywin did what needed to be done.

Yup, Tywin was the one with the spine.

1 minute ago, Jon's Queen Consort said:

Again; punishing crimes that had happened before he became the King? Did he supposed to punish all the crimes that heve happened in Westersos before him too?

This was a crime done specifically to buy his loyalty, and he let himself be bought by it. So let's stop treat it like he had nothing to do with it.

2 minutes ago, Jon's Queen Consort said:

Because that is what everything points too.

The only argument you've presented for it so far (Tywin's opinion) turned out to be untrue.

5 minutes ago, Jon's Queen Consort said:

Again why Robert had to punish some crimes that had happened during wartime against his enemies before he became the King?

Because that's the role of the ruler and the fact that he didn't makes the opinions that he 'climbed to the throne over the corpses of Targ children' true.

Btw, we are discussing cowardice not morality here, so if Robert actually had the balls to order those murders himself and stain his name directly, I'd at least admit that he's less of a coward.

[Jon's Queen Consort]

2 minutes ago, Tianzi said:

Because that's the role of the ruler 

The role of the ruler is to punish what has happened during his reign not before.

The only argument you've presented for it so far (Tywin's opinion) turned out to be untrue.

When you have presenting nothing proving that he would had done it.

[khal drogon]

4 minutes ago, Jon's Queen Consort said:

Again; punishing crimes that had happened before he became the King? Did he supposed to punish all the crimes that heve happened in Westersos before him too?

Because that is what everything points too.

Yes, when he killed the last Targs he proved he wasn't loyal to the Targs anymore.

Again why Robert had to punish some crimes that had happened during wartime against his enemies before he became the King?

It is not about punishment. The fact that dead children could be used to earn loyalty from him really says about him. 

[Tianzi]

1 minute ago, Jon's Queen Consort said:

The role of the ruler is to punish what has happened during his reign not before,

Um, actually:

a. after a wartime the new ruler typically serves justice for what happened during the wartime.

b. Robert was associated with this particular crime (not at the moment it was committed, but by accepting Tywin as his ally for it)

c. well, he didn't fulfill his role during his reign too, anyway.

[Tianzi]

6 minutes ago, Jon's Queen Consort said:

When you have presenting nothing proving that he would had done it.

I never said that he would have done it. I said that your statement that it was said by Tywin that he wouldn't, turned out to be:

1 hour ago, Jon's Queen Consort said:

Utter .