A few quick questions about outlander that I feel on cannot ask on a pontential outlander because these questions may or may not overall effect the way the char feels towards the cabal.
So I feel they are best asked OOC

As a outlander, you are expected to hate..
Dwarves, Duergar, and whom? (Darkelf minotaur?)
and the typical sylvan classes
Anti-paladin, necro,conjurer
Now, If they (outlanders) hate dwarves, whom mine the earth, (thar-eris)
Why do they (outlanders) wear the bones of the thar-eris as weapons and armor (metal)?

And ontop of that, as a goodie Outlander would one always be expected to slay such said 'defilers' even if such said defiler was a dwarvern paladin etc..
And not expect to get the boot for not following cabal feeling and policy? (Like letting him get away, or simply not attacking him period)
Or can we be leanant as we feel fit?

The Outlander concept has a lot of flexibility, allowing for characters with different values to interpret things differently as is suitable for their alignment/role.

As a outlander, you are expected to hate.. Dwarves, Duergar, and whom? (Darkelf minotaur?)

The helpfile mentions several races and classes that are not welcome in the cabal. These races and classes are not to be trusted by members of the cabal. Outlanders are not expected to 'hate' these groups, but they might if it's what fits their role. I imagine most Outlanders will hate some, and just distrust others, depending on their personal motivations and goals.

...and the typical sylvan classes Anti-paladin, necro,conjurer..

I dislike the term "typical sylvan classes". One thing to keep in mind is the reason for distrust of these classes is different than the reasons Sylvans hated them.

Now, If they (outlanders) hate dwarves, whom mine the earth, (thar-eris) Why do they (outlanders) wear the bones of the thar-eris as weapons and armor (metal)?

Two things. First, bones are a much more replenishible resource, and most bone objects that exist have the implication that they were created in primitive circumstances, as opposed to civilization-based mining operations which are much more large scale. Being harmonious with the earth doesn't mean living as an isolated naked vegan. Hunting, skinning, or living in a small village setting can be seen as harmonious, and would involve eating meat, using bones and hides, etc. Second, whether it's bone or metal, objects that already exist are not objectionable. If I find some steel gauntlets on the ground, me refusing to wear them doesn't affect in any way whether dwarves continue to mine or not. Part of the idea of swearing off coins is that Outlanders do not contribute to *industry* that propels societies to mine and forge, but scavening items off the ground or from the still-bleeding corpse of some Imperial you kill doesn't contribute to the problem. There is one metal that is an exception to this, because it is created with unnatural methods, and as such the Ancients would rather see said metal removed from the world entirely.

And ontop of that, as a goodie Outlander would one always be expected to slay such said 'defilers' even if such said defiler was a dwarvern paladin etc..

You are thinking in Sylvan terms here. A) Said races and classes are not necessarily "defilers" B) There is no expectation that you have to murder said races and classes and C) Even if good felt that they did need to murder them (say, a dwarven paladin Tribunal), the idea is that it's for the greater good, and it would be approached with a burdened heart but firm confiction, in the same way good battleragers will sometimes kill good mages, or good tribunals will sometimes kill good criminals.

And not expect to get the boot for not following cabal feeling and policy? (Like letting him get away, or simply not attacking him period)

Yes and no. Yes, because the cabal policy in terms of declared enemies is much more geared towards those who protect and serve society, namely Empire and Tribunal. In those two cases, the Outlanders are expected to impede them at every opportunity and an Outlander who actively failed to even try to do so would face consequences. The races and classes are secondary, and more up to the individual, though an Outlander that trusted those races by grouping with/giving gifts to/marrying objectionable races/classes would find consequences as well.

>The Outlander concept has a lot of flexibility, allowing for characters with different values to interpret things differently as is suitable for their alignment/role.

I have yet to play an outlander, but for me it looks like alot is hardcoded to make everyone alike.

You have hardcoded induction so you need to spend a certain percentage in the wilderness. You might argue that you need to be close to the wilderness and all. But that will result in me not wanting to rank in cilvilized areas(even if that would be great for my roleplay) and spend to much time fighting and raiding in civilized areas before induction. Sitting in a forest emoting at animals is not that fun after the first two hours.

You have hardcoded money usage, I understand the reasoning behind it and wont complain here. Just a question, is it possible to barter a more valuable object for 10 pies or similar?

Guess I could find out myself when I think aout it.

You can actually spend a huge chunk of time in civilization, and still have enough time in the wilderness to get inducted into the Outlanders. The wilderness requirement is actually less than it was for the Sylvan Warders.

It's very reasonable, and any character I have seen that was created with the cabal in mind, hasn't had a problem with it. The characters that are having issues are almost universally are older characters with a lot of hours. Characters who frittered away hours in the inn or their guild without realizing it, and now due to the accumulation of time *not* spent in the wilderness, it's difficult to recover from.

Being familiar with the wilderness is a fundmaental part of being an Outlander, for obvious reasons, and this requirement reflect that. I don't see how this at all hardcodes the cabal members to "all be alike".

As for the bartering, you can presently only barter for one item.

I'm seeing a lot recently about how it's ok for good aligns to kill goods but with a suitable degree of remorse.

I don't see why remorse is always necessary. Can I put the following example forward to see what you think?

If I'm an elf outlander, and there is a dwarf paladin trib, I am not sure I'd feel any remorse about killing him. After all, he's done a lot of evil stuff in my outlander opinion (raped Thar-eris or whatever), and he doesn't really do much good (doesn't kill duergar and so on unless they break the law, but does promote the society that is causing damage to Thar-eris).

Why would I feel any regret for killing such a despicable guy?

My point is, that just because the paladin IS good, doesn't mean my elf sees him as good. In this case, he stands for everything the elf despises and does nothing the elf admires. So why would my elf feel any regret when he dies? My elf believes he has just killed someone who deserves to die.

That is a viable approach to some degree, but you do have to remember that in CF, "good" and "evil" are a lot more objective. Gold auras immediately imply that a person, no matter what they are doing, is doing what they are doing with benevolent intentions and good values. As a good aligned character you have to attest to that. You may well say the "road to Inferno is paved with good intentions" or "regardless of intent, magic/civilization/criminal behaviour (or whatever) is evil" but you can't deny that this person is spiritually imprinted with an inherrent goodness that shares some of your values as a fellow good. Believing that is what inspires goods to express traditionally good virtues such as compassion. Otherwise, the only thing that would separate good from neutral would be that the good labels civilization/magic/whatever as "evil" where the neutral labels civilization/magic/whatever as "wrong", and their actions become identical.

So when I say it is a viable approach, I could accept that of a splendidly roleplayed character with a lot of depth and consistency of "good" actions in other areas. With most characters, however, it is more than likely someone who doesn't want to be bothered with being held accountible to their alignment, which is where the fantasy good/evil objectivity becomes a gold standard to which the majority of characters can and should be held accountable.

You can go too far in embracing real-life subjectivity in relations to alignment. After all, in real life "good" people don't go around killing people who do things they don't approve of, except in very controlled circumstances. In real life, pro-life terrorists who go murder abortion doctors are not considered "good" people even by those who believe abortion is wrong, yet in CF, that is exactly what "good" characters are essentially doing. To make up for that, this objective good/evil idea is what guides characters with good alignments - to, when confronted with good-aligned enemies, seek alternate approaches to violence, to show compassion, and to failing that, to feel burdened by necessity when violence becomes the outcome due to their higher values.

You answered all my questions, although you saw to much into all the wrong details.

Thank you, and sorry for seeing it in such sylvanistic terms its just the only way I felt I could express myself about said cabal feelings, attitudes.

Thanks, and you guys although not getting much credit, I think your doing a way better job than I'd be doing. (which although isn't saying too much, is still a compliment, I think.)