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.)

It’s not an unreasonable question, whether from a first timer or an old hand so it’s probably too soon to call spam. As for the question I’m fine with him being ( or appearing to be) CG. I can Al see see some folks calling him NG as that could fit too given how much he knows behind the scenes - he seldom really breaks (reasonable) laws. I could even see a case foe calling him LN but with only 2 laws- oppose evil, do what Mystra wants. I think that is really a stretch but it does technically fit his actions generally.

I think part of the problem is that it alignment has also changed with the editions.  In older editions he is deftly CG.  Mind you some thing I like to point out is In Starwars trilogy Luke is CG as he is tiring to over throw the government and the Emperor is LE as he makes the Laws.

The first part is an oversimplification of the Lawful/Chaotic axis- Lawfulness is not inherently holding any given law/authority as sacrosanct simply because it exists. Seeking to overthrow an actively tyrannical and oppressive regime can mesh with that entire spectrum- an LG can object either to the ends the system is turned to or how typically an evil empire is a cesspool of corruption and abuse of authority under the veneer of “maintaining order”.

I still think this is a bot. 

But if we’re doing an alignment thread, I’ll say the difference between CG and NG is barely existent. To the point I think they are only there to fill out the box of 9 neatly, more than there because there’s enough of a difference to merit them being separate things,

But I haven’t really used or cared about alignment since 2e, so I may not be the best source. 

I think the big difference between NG and CG is predictablity. CG is not very predictable to others while NG has at least some predictablity for others.

"Chaotic" is not a synonym for "random."

No, I'm not a spammer. I haven't been logged in because I was on vacation.

This question has been burning in me quite awhile and I wanted to ask other seasoned veterans what they thought.

I'm not new to D&D.

The way I look at it, Neutral on the Law/Chaos axis is utilitarian- for instance while a Chaotic individual would likely be inclined to reject appealing to institutional authority for assistance on the assumption they're too ineffectual, apathetic, etc. to do anything about the issue while a Lawful one would be in favor of it on the assumption that an institutional system is a force multiplier to addressing issues, a Neutral would weigh their personal assessment of the institution before deciding where they stand. Not necessarily saying they'll use perfect objective logic, but by definition they're the middle ground between "shoot from the hip, don't bother with the red tape" and by-the-book "doing something the right way matters as much as doing the right thing".