[Murgleys]

I gotta side with Steve on this. Classic noble Robin lost everything because the law was lawless. Also, classic noble Robin was actually putting his plunder toward the ransom of King Richard so that he could be freed and returned home. Now, if the previous law was upsurped and corrupted into something not very "lawful", or at least "law" when the authority in power wished it to be, would Robin's "lawlessness" be such? King Richard was the lawful ruler and his "laws" were being abused by those in power back home so.... would this possibly make classic noble Robin even lawful good? At least neutral good, I dare say.
The myth of Robin Hood is that he actually was NOT a nobleman but a yeoman (a step away from peasant) and his actions actually had little to do with King Richard. He might have taken what he got and distributed it among the poor he knew but, even so, that would make "true" Robin Hood chaotic good or chaotic neutral, depending.
If a paladin rides into a land where slavery is legal and against everything he's been taught... what does he (she) do? Or, not slavery, but oppressive taxes to the point of death and starvation...