That band of Merry Men strikes me as quintessential CG. Loose leadership, loose planning and generally loose objectives. There is no clear hierarchies or anything I might associate with the rigid but good way of thinking that is associated with LG.
Here I agree 1000%. I think RH was, on some level, exploiting people who didn't really share his agenda :)
In essence Robin Hoods methods are in line with CG but what he ultimately hopes to achieve is in line with LG - so which one takes precedence? Is how you act more important then what you believe in or vice versa?
Now we're getting dangerously close to meaningful, real-life issues. In my book, a person that doesn't act on what he believes doesn't really believe it.
In the case of RH, he did act on his convictions. He wasn't obligated to obey a corrupt set of leaders, but rather to restore the rightful and moral rule of Richard. Using a rag-tag band of bandits was perfectly OK with him. Perhaps a paladin wouldn't be able to get away with all this, but 'the end justifies the means' has never been conclusively shot down as a valid morality, even for Good (though I don't subscribe to such beliefs).
Chaotics, in contrast, would very likely oppose the establishment of any government that holds such power over society.
As always, IMHO :)
Regards,
Jack