Where is the possible argument that the freedom fighter battling against the UEE is actually being lawful relative to their organization or region? Maybe it is because we just have a portion of the Stanton System in game initially.
I would have thought, and I was expecting, a mission system that showed missions reflecting relationship deviations and, of course, reward. For example I could accept a mission which will directly drive down my reputation with Mr X of XYZ NPC organization by 25 basis points, but pays out handsomely on successful completion. [See previous post for possible indirect reputation variances.] Of course, in the performance of this mission I might run afoul of the UEE and suffer a reputation hit with them, too. The mission giver should probably tell me the likelihood of that, too.
With respect to "the Enemy of My Enemy is My Friend" stuff, I wouldn't expect to be told by the mission giver how any of that could play out. Maybe some mission research is required or maybe some missions' consequences are just intuitively known. The path we walk is fraught with unknowns and moral decisions often have consequence.
It could be that reputation is independent of lawfulness. UEE cares if you have broken the law. It doesn't care if you're an ass-hat. Maybe one can have an excellent reputation and still be a criminal in the eyes of the UEE. Or, one can have a terrible reputation and not be an Outlaw.
And how does one become an UnOutlaw?
Star Citizen a3.0, due to drop mid-July, is the long awaited release that gives some life to the Verse. But with the reputation system not yet included and with the death mechanic also not done, it may be a big shootfest test.