Being a goodie really isn't about not attacking other goodies. Its about conducting yourself in a way that follows a defined moral code that is not just about you.

This isn't really true. There most certainly are Moral Absolutes in the world of CF. Slaughtering orphans is always going to be evil, even if your eloquent role describes why your character thinks orphans are the epitome of evil.

If you're playing a goodie and want to kill another goodie, you absolutely have to be cognisant of the fact that you're both good. If I can't watch your actions and tell very clearly that you're good instead of evil or neutral, expect problems. And I don't mean just roleplaying remorse through a few emotes, I mean there has to be actual tangible indications that you're good, i.e. warning another goodie before you attack them, not attacking them at all, holding a long discussion before you attack them, etc.

Take a goodie Rager for example. While you might believe that magic is the root of all evil, and therefore decide that you need to kill goodies... under the Moral Absolute code you've decided that magic is what's important and good isn't, and therefore you're neutral.

I think we as a staff tend to be too lenient on goodies killing goodies if it fits within their cabal dogma. Battle, Tribunal and Outlander are particularly susceptible to this. If you're a goodie Outlander that makes a living out of slaughtering paladins, you should expect to be turned neutral pretty quickly - because you've chosen to disregard alignment for a different moral compass. I would put forth that you need to find an alternative method of dealing with good-aligned cabal enemies that doesn't involving killing them. That's why you're good, not neutral. Then in cabal raid situations and the like when you're forced in to fighting them, is the time to roleplay all that remorse.

Just look at it this way: If you're planning on fighting people of your own alignment regularly, even if you plan on roleplaying remorse, you should just be neutral instead.

All that said, I too am against a hard-coded solution to a moral quandry. If we could hard-code a solution that would be appropriate in all concievable situations, it wouldn't really be a moral quandry, would it?