#Fallout new vegas slayer how to

He'll work with anyone and everyone as long at it serves his end. Doesn't care about the preservation of the system like the lawful guy, and doesn't care about sticking it to the man like the chaotic guy. Here is the guy that is only out for the self. Originally posted by Two Bears:To me, however, the neutral evil type is the most interesting. He will already have what he wants by that point.

#Fallout new vegas slayer how to

That he knows nothing about how to run a state and that it likely means the end of good times in Vegas means nothing to him. An Independent Vegas would be ideal for such a character, as it gives him whatever he desires. He will almost exclusively be out for himself. A Courier of this alignment will behave similarly. Lastly, he chats up the Courier (any alignment) when confronted. He teams up with a bunch of Great Khans (chaotic neutral as an organization) for the same reasons and dumps then. He teams up with a Follower of the Apocalypse (neutral good as an organization), not because he believes in helping but rather because Emily Ortal can give him what he wants. Once he sees that he can have more, he starts working subtly against him. He works with House (lawful evil) because House offers Benny a leg up. Benny is the game's resident neutral evil type. Rather, he avoids it because it is ultimately working against his own ends. And not because he feels it is wrong he will do it if he has to. He doesn't kill senselessly, and does not torture for fun and giggles. He'll also drop or turn on those allies once their goals no longer match. To me, however, the neutral evil type is the most interesting. Enough senseless murder and even your fellow evil types run you down. For their endings, both House and Caesar wipe them out. They have a hard time getting what they want without repercussions that usually end with the chaotic evil type dead. This tends to be the least succesful archetype.

They take what they want and do what they want outright regardless of what anyone else thinks. On one hand you have those chaotic evil Joker types. Those working outside of the system are played differently.

Such a Courier would favor the House, Legion or even NCR endings. He has no issue with serving others and he functions well within the established power structure. He governs effectively because he believes that government must do so in order to give him what he wants. Once he's at the top, however, all bets are off and he likely makes his own rules and sticks to those. Won't shoot that innocent not because it is morally wrong, but because the rules in place dictate that this is unacceptable and that Courier sees the rules as the best way to get ahead. A Courier fitting to this type of alignment is going to play by the rules. Lawful evil, as such, tends to be the most successful evil archetype. Angry and bitter, she now uses her position to cooerce and get what she wants, rather than to get what is best the opposite of someone like Colonel Hsu. Colonel Moore, lastly, is another example. Not because of the harm it does to others, mind you, but because it deprives House a small part of what he deems to be his. The rules, when violated, are punished harshly. His system is set up with him at the head, with all wealth going toward him. He claims Vegas as his because he believes it to be his. House is another great example of this, albeit without the slavery. In truth, the only one it is really good for is Caesar he has designed the system so that all power and wealth flow upward to him. He talks about having the social order such that humanity cannot fracture again.

Is this character going to work within the established social order or outside of it? Caesar is an excellent example of the lawful evil type working within the social compact. Obviously an evil character doesn't care about making the world a better place, at least not for the sake of making it a better place. First, you must ask yourself what you character wants out of the world. Evil characters are out for themselves they're not all Jokers. As someone who almost exclusively has played evil characters since 1978, there is nothing more painful than somebody rolling an evil character and just doing things that they think make for good cartoon-based evilness.