I don't know really know enough of what he's done or will do to fight to the death or anything, but I vote CN, on the basis that I think alignments should label trends of actions and not account for intent. Lots of villains pet the dog, but our ability to understand or empathize with their motives doesn't preclude an Evil alignment.
I think that's as good a reason as any to have moved away from alignment systems, though. The terms good and evil are so loaded and subjective that we ended up painting a lot of things as either when they were probably more firmly in the Neutral category with everyone else when weighing pre-defined actions, and having a means to detect alignment in-character kind of ruins the blurriness between how characters are viewed and how they're labeled. So in some campaigns, rogue templars might be the equivalent of fallen paladins, formerly LG (now they're Evil, safe to kill!), where in others, they were never externally labeled as Good to begin with (even if their society might have described it that way).
Solas seems to approve of many actions both labeled as 'Good' and viewed as good, but I'm not sure he'd go out and start feeding refugees himself, for example. He seems more about empowering others to fight the system, with subjectively good intent to back the inevitable casualties involved. He rolls his eyes at some examples of martyrdom, presumably because a clever person wouldn't have needed to die, and believes regrettable measures are sometimes needed to make a better world. (The Operative from Serenity comes to mind, with that phrase.) Most of the god-imagery is a dark/light duality, and most of the stories we've heard are, as well. I haven't had an alignment argument in forever, though. Can't imagine why 