Anguirel's page

I'll try to translate the primary point against non-land-speed charges:

There's a special ability for a single creature that appears to be an Aerial version of charge (rather than an extension or improvement on charge). If this ability is needed to charge while flying for this creature, no other creatures can charge while flying.

Stampede also finds the concept of burrowing or swimming charges to be ridiculous. I disagree...

For Burrowing Creatures: Creatures cannot charge or run while burrowing. This is explicitly noted in the text for the Burrow ability in 3.5 SRD (the PRD doesn't have any text for Burrow or Burrow Speeds itself, apparently). That said, as it isn't explicitly disallowed in the PRD it shoudl be allowed. If allowed, a Bulette would definitely be a candidate, and even has a charge-based improvement ability requiring a leap (which I could totally see it doing when starting the round underground to burst out of the ground and into the air, then land and attack).

For Swimming Creatures: I'd say a Shark can, would, and does frequently charge while swimming. Similarly, the Tritons explicitly use cavalry tactics, which would certainly include charging while on their aquatic mounts. Heck, that one even has Ride-By Attack as a feat, and they rarely leave the water and are explicitly noted as using dolphins as aquatic mounts. What the point even be if they couldn't charge, since that explicitly requires the use of a charge action?

Further, Flight lacks the specific verbiage restricting charges and running that is present in Burrow. The Strix Archetype Airborne Ambusher has an ability that explicitly enhances a charge made while flying with bonuses above those of a normal charge including fly speed.

In regards to the original question, the Ranger Archetype Falconer gives their pet a special bonus trick Swooping Charge. This is just a trick, not a new Ex or Su, and gives it additional bonuses -- but also specifies that the bird uses a Charge action to gain them, cementing that Charge is allowed for Flying creatures.

Anguirel wrote:

Within the world of D&D and PF, this makes a lot more sense than it seems. [Good] is "Whatever the Good Deities say it is," same as [Evil] is "Whatever the Evil deities are involved in." It's picking a team.

Where does alignment matter? It only matters in two cases of which I am aware: 1) Asking one of those deities (or their servants) for a favor; 2) When someone detects your alignment, or uses another spell or effect that is alignment...

That's explicitly NOT how alignment is defined in the game. Nor should it be.

"Good" being what an entity defines it as doesn't make sense. Read Plato's dialogues. Get your thinking on.

I disagree. That is explicitly exactly how it is defined. [Good] and [Evil] spell descriptors aren't directly tied to morality. They're mechanical effects of the system. And similarly, acts related to being Good or Evil aren't directly tied to philosophical morality -- there's a lot of gray in the real world -- they're very specific and objectively definite within the context of PF. Plato didn't write PF or D&D, and while he said some interesting stuff, it doesn't apply here.

Let's go to the extreme here: If the God of Ultimate Goodness says you need to kill a baby for <reasons>, and it isn't a test, it's a direct command and that Deity means it... killing that baby is a Good act, no matter how insane that may seem. And unless another Good Deity is saying "Don't kill it" then not killing it is a Neutral act at best (choosing not to make sacrifices), and possibly Evil (actively opposing the Good).

In general, Good and Evil moralities in our normal definition of things and their definitions in PF match up, but it isn't required... but in the specific case of "Alignment" it is purely a mechanic for detecting whether you're playing for the Good Deities or the Evil Deities. It's picking a team.

Getting your Smite on as a Paladin because something Detects as Evil isn't about doing "Good". In many cultures, that would be inherently Evil (especially, say, if you were a Jainist and went so far as to sweep bugs out of your path so you didn't accidentally crush them as you walk). You should be looking to take them alive, bring them to trial, and have appropriate non-lethal punishments that reform and redeem.

In PF? Murder-Hobos are Good, because they go around killing Evil. If you swapped all the Good and Evil Alignments on everything, you wouldn't change the general nature of the game all that much. The characters could be Evil just as easily as Good, as long as their targets were appropriately chosen, and very little would change except possibly tactics and willingness to allow for side-effects and allow the ends to justify the means.

I'll assume the enemy is setting up to do this to my character. If I would finish my allowed move in that square (e.g. target is exactly my move speed away), yes, that works. He swings and steps back, and I can either close with my standard action, or do something else. If I was charging and am out of move, I waste the charge action and don't get to attack.

However, that's pretty rare. Usually if I'm closing to attack, I will still have some move left over. So I'm in the middle of my move action, and I move 15' in and hit the trigger square. The guy with the readied action interrupts that move, attacks, and moves 5' further away. That done, it's still the middle of my Move action. I move another 5' since I have move remaining to close the gap, and then I can perform whatever Standard Action I was intending to use.

There are exceptions, naturally -- if the readied action impacts my movement (Trip effect, Entangle, Bull rush effect, etc...), I may no longer be able to complete my move action, or may not be able to reach a point close enough to attack, even though I had remaining move.