Independent: My reason for Anarchy being evil is because it leaves the Mojave without any structure, being the courier leaves afterwards. Thus it seems as if the player is abandoning the Mojave to fend for itself, to me.
That isn't evil at all. It just means it didn't turn out how you expected. And I remember one of the devs confirming that the Courier stayed to rule over Vegas, though admittedly I couldn't source you on that, so I may be mistaken. Still, it would be illogical for the Courier to abandon Vegas after all he accomplished. I understand that NV is a journey of self-discovery, but the Courier has to settle some day, and I believe that if he were to continue to wander, then Uylsses message would be entirely dismised. Every player RPs their Courier differenty. My Indie Courier persued the Yes Man path in the interest of the people. How is that evil? The intent was good, even if in the short-term the streets were chaotic, doesn't make it evil.
Caesar's Legion: My reason for the Legion is, even if Caesar was to unite the wasteland slavery would be rampant, they are very cruel, even to their own, and they are just plain brutal. Other than uniting the wasteland so there would be no more war, I can't see a shred of good in them. Even if that is accomplished the people would be so broken I doubt anyone would want to live in this "peaceful" world.
Fair enough. I agree that the Legion has nothing to offer the Mojave, and I believe it will turn itself whether it takes the West or not, for one reason or aother. Caesar's death will simultaneously kill the Legion. But understand - this doesn't discredit what the Legion achieved east of the Colorado. Caesar pacified a land ripe with chaos and criminality. Ironically, slavery liberated the East from lawlessness. The West, however, is an entirely different beast.
NCR: They have their good and their bad, they are the only one that seems neutral to me.
Perhaps I'm misunderstanding, but when you say ''this ending is good, this one's bad, and the other's neutral'', it suggests a specific character archtype for each faction, which simply isn't the case. If I side with the NCR, it's not because I'm regarded as neutral from a moral perspective, it's because that character believes in the ideals the NCR represents. It's not about some vague moral alignment. Of course, you could then debate the morality of those ideals, but do you see what I'm getting at?
House: It just seems like the best option. He will destroy the Legion and allow the NCR to have a limited presence, while still protecting the Mojave.
But at the same time, he is willing to pitilessly eliminate all that stand in his path. Think the Kings and the BoS. I support House, but he is ruthlessly pragmatic (which is a + IMO) and doesn't have much regard for human life if it hinders progress. I think a House ending does have the potential for the brightest future for the Mojave and humanity in general, but at the end of the day, it's all subjective. Others might venomously oppose House, so there's no right or wrong. But you did state it was a personal opinion so fair enough.
Apologies for poor-wording and [censored] syntax; I'm tired
Pragmatism and his whole socioeconomic and sociopolitical algorithms that would make a baby's head explode is better than Caesar though. While Caesar is very pragmatic and intelligent, his theories all reside from preexisting theories he changes to fit the needs of the Legion. Mr. House, with his numbers, can create totally new theories AND test whether or not they work.
Good that we see eye-to-eye on this matter
After all, Caesar is very intelligent but he's a human and might make mistakes in his fledgling Empire.
Let's not get carried away here. House is still human, too, even if he is an incredibly remarkable one
Let's not forget that his inability to adapt to the Lucky 38's older, buggy software rendered him comatose. He's not infallible. This served a purpose, though - it reminded House of his morality. He has no delusions about himself, and I fail to see him falling prey to his image.