Korpen's page

First, slavery is not recent; it has always existed and quite likely will always exist. Slavery was even common in most of Europe for most of the middle ages; but it was not restricted to any particular ethnic groups (tough slave from the Balkans were the most common around the Mediterranean.).

Secondly: Much depends on what one defines as slavery; if by it you mean someone that is unfree, no right to vote or other political representation, stripped of most rights, forced to work, and subject to punishment if failing to do so while receiving no real wage as well as not being allowed to meet members of their family unless the master gives permission. By that definition there is about 2.3 million slaves in the USA today.
Only they are called “inmates” or “prisoners” instead of slaves, but the difference is mainly of what one chooses to call it rather then a difference in practice.

So I think the question is really easy; is putting people in prison always an evil act? If so, so is slavery.
If it is sometimes ok to put people in prison, then one should be ok with sometimes enslaving people as well.

Thematically they were always a classic staple weapon used by at least 1 party member back in the day,

Back in the day everyone was a dirty, optimizing powergamer. As the longsword was the by far best weapon, it was the weapon everyone used (unless they went for inferior themed weapon) when optimizing.

Thing about the ”longsword” is that it back in ADD was much superior to all other weapons, so it was seriously over-used, PF simply move it closer to were it IMO should be; a good auxiliary weapon.

It is still used widely, but rarely as the main weapon for dedicated fighters; First two-handers are more useful as primary weapons use to better damage. Secondly from level 4-6 somewhere the pluses (and hence the crit chance) become more important.

Sometime we have done is flipping the exotic/martial requirements when mounted.
So the longsword (D&D bastard sword) is a martial to use one-handed on horseback, but exotic to use with two hands in the saddle.

As to weapon speeds, arguments of the “it goes faster to swing a knife then a halberd” is a bit silly as the difference in how fast the hands can move is marginal, and the point in any case is to move the tip of the weapon. The longer the weapons the smaller moments are needed to move the parts that does damage, so they become faster.

Just a situation and a question for you GM-types out there:

Let's say a person is the target of some evil plot and is framed for a murder. You're a paladin, and you know absolutely that the person in question is innocent, but the evidence is so stacked against them that your testimony is not enough to save them from an execution sentence. You also know that the court in question is a fair one and is not corrupt itself.
In this type of scenario, the paladin faces a tough choice: Either save the innocent and go against legitimate authority, or allow an innocent to die for a crime they did not commit.

What, in most people's opinions, is the correct path to follow here, and in other situations where doing the right thing is also doing the wrong thing? How would you not break your code either way? (Before you say anything, I absolutely know GMs who would allow such a scenario!)

Evidence? Physical evidence should be irrelevant, stop thinking like all fantasy worlds are modern society in other clothes.

Prior to the 20th century physical evidence was a distant second to character and witness evaluation. This is one reason why foreigners and vagabonds (which I think adventures often are) are at a disadvantage, no family or colleagues that can stand up and speak on their behalf and try and convince the court that the act is not in the defendant’s nature.
A Paladin that would take a solemn oath to their god to tell the truth, and then lie under oath would be stripped of their powers; the Paladin knows this, and more importantly the court knows this as well. So a paladin is very powerful in the kind of situations were they speak in a court, as its is only possible to argue that the paladin is wrong and misinformed, never that they speak an untruth knowingly.

Hi guys,

Just wondering, can a cavalier work without a horse? So far I've been tanking on dungeons without having my horse enter and such, and it just seems to be somewhat a vestigial addition in all the games I've played lately.

Thoughts?

Do what any sensible adventurer do; divert a suitable river or stream to the dungeon opening to either drown its denizens or force them into the open.

Or just collapse the opening, if it is something inside that wants out one can fight it then, and if it stays underground, what is the problem?

For the Genderme archtype bonus feats, if you don't qualify for the feat do you still have to take it/can you take it?

Strictly by the rules as written, I think the answer is ”no”. I take it you are thinking about spring attack? As far as I know it is the only case were there is a bonus feat from deep within a feat tree without its prerequisite feats (or allowing for prerequisites to be waived).

Sadly most of the Cavalier archetypes are very poorly written in regards to the rules (see all the confusion about the beastmaster) as in serious need of errata. Something Pazio sadly seem disinclined to do.

The sensible thing to do is simply to remove spring attack from the list as it does not fit the overall theme.