I'm certain this has been posted on before, and I've started to see suggestions pop up during recent discussions I've been apart of, so I thought I'd just pose the question again since I just recently completed my final play through out of the 4. I did them in this order: side with NCR, side with Legion, side with House, then side with Yes Man (yourself). I decided to do Yes Man last because you get to make the decisions for how the region will receive its power and how Vegas will be controlled and I found that simply more interesting. Now since you are actually controlling the future of the wasteland is that exactly neutral? Is helping Mr. House control New Vegas any more "neutral"? You are contributing to the status quo and maintaining a sense of order in the region. Mr House also was a champion for progress and wanted humanity (and himself) to "explore the stars." Perhaps he could have. But perhaps Yes Man will do the same? As he integrates with Mr. House's network into his own at the end of the game.

It's an interesting question and also pertains to which the developers might consider as canon later on if the Fallout Bible and future games were to reference back to these events. If I were into the position to make such a decision I would go with the player taking control of New Vegas, sending the NCR out of the area, and passing off management to Yes Man, who more or less follows the protocols set forth by Mr. House.

It's fun to think about and I would love to discuss this further.

The Followers of the Apocalypse are the most neutral group. They just want to help the average joe. All other major factions (the ones that actually fight for or against you) have some sort of stake in the end fight.

Yeah, I guess in a way you are right about them being neutral, but they still aren't at the table in transforming the Mojave wasteland like the big 4. That was kind of what I was asking about. :foodndrink:

yeah the followers but they are not one of the top 4. if your talking about top 4 id say ncr i think

Depends on your definition of neutral. If we go by the textbook definition:

neu·tral[ nootr?l ]: belonging to, favoring, or assisting no side in a war, dispute, contest, or controversy

Then the one side that would closely fit that profile would be Independent Vegas, aka Yes Man. As the primary war is between the NCR, Legion, and later on House. Electing to fight both sides and kick them out is the closest thing to a neutral party as you'll get. Though, House can be seen as neutral early on, his later tactics leave it questionable.

HOWEVER

On the same side of the coin we have another definition of neutral:

without distinctive qualities: possessing no distinctive quality or revealing no attitude or feeling.

If we were to use this definition, House would be the closest to being neutral, that or Yes Man. Even then it would be a stretch considering Yes Man was programmed by House/Benny and either of the two are impartial at best.

That being said, if we take a synonym of the word "neutral" say, unbiased for example. Yes Man would fit that profile evenly. NCR is biased because they believe that what they are doing is right, and the Old World system was right on the money. Same for the legion for basically the same reasons. House is biased because he thinks his way is the only way for humanity to move forward.

I guess mainly it's just an issue of one's own personal ethics, as well as how one feels about the word neutral.

U get to influence Vegas the most when u side with Yes Man. If u feel Vegas should be neutral then that's the only way as u cannot control any of the other factions.

Vegas won't be neutral in the "peace for our time" sense, as Gen. Oliver promises that NCR will declare war on Vegas.