And thats where my point eventually leads. A paladin enters an oppresed land and his first attempt is to solve things by the Law. Whatever the "real" state of the situation was when the story took place is irrelevant. That being, wherever the King was, it wasn't in the scene. So the "law" was Nottingham and so the paladin (right or wrong) wasn't about to start a rebel movement. That goes against the principles of being Lawful.
Not saying the paladin wouldn't do anything about it, he would just go through different routes. Probably leading to open war. The way Paladins do things.
Instead we get this rebelious hidden movement that supports thievery (albeit for a good cause), and generally under the table dealings to exploit the current leaders and return peace to the land.
Sure at the end King Richard was back and the order was restored. But I bet you if King Richard was ever to become like the sheriff, Robin would resource to the same rebelious manners or a CG individual. And not some paladinish I'll smite you behaviour.
Then again the view of paladinhood is all skewed. But thats another unhealthy subject.
