Elminster seems more Neutral Good than Chaotic

From his mannerisms to his speech and his involvement in activities, it always seemed to me that Elminster would be more accurately defined as Neutral Good rather than Chaotic Good. Anyone else agree or disagree and have reasons why or why not?

Now, I think Drizzt certainly fits the bill of Chaotic Good.

I have no particular opinion on the specific case of Elminster (been a long time since I read any of the FR novels), but in general, alignment is incredibly subjective, particularly on the law-chaos axis, which is rather ill-defined.

Though I'd think that, in general, hyper-powerful know-it-all manipulative good-guy wizards would tend to most people's definition of Chaotic, as they usually have a lot of "I know what's best, and don't need to work within organized power structures, or even explain myself to anyone else". How well that applies to Elminster I don't recall.

That applied to Elminster all the time back when Ed Greenwood was still writing.  Since his retirement all of his characters have mostly been either killed off or pushed out of focus and consequently don't really do that much directly anymore.

I think the op is a spammer. First day, random topic, one post, not logged in since.

Considering that they only created their profile today, maybe give them a little more time to log in again.  Unless the post is a copy-paste from Reddit.

Chaotic Good (CG). Chaotic Good creatures act as their conscience directs with little regard for what others expect. A rebel who waylays a cruel baron’s tax collectors and uses the stolen money to help the poor is probably Chaotic Good.

vs 

Neutral Good (NG). Neutral Good creatures do the best they can, working within rules but not feeling bound by them. A kindly person who helps others according to their needs is probably Neutral Good.

Elminster definitely only follows rules when they align with whatever she was going to do anyway.  He doesn't "try" to work within the rules.

Quote from Xalthu >>

I think the op is a spammer. First day, random topic, one post, not logged in since.

 They don't read like an LLM. They started their own thread, instead of tacking on to an old thread. There's been no edit to add a link. And, most importantly, it's coherent and on-topic. (OK, it'd be better placed in Story and Lore.)

"New account" is not in and of itself enough reason to start throwing around accusations of spamming. Assuming good faith doesn't hurt here. (It's why the reddit-copiers worked relatively well, but that seems to have fallen out of style.)