I don't think that Locke has ever been set up as a Robin Hood type character. Gentleman thief, maybe, but his deeds have only ever been noble if they can help him or his immediate circle of friends. The city of Opak-Re (where they're hiding now) (well not really but...) could be falling into the ocean due to some malevolent tinkering courtesy of the bondsmagi and he would be doing his damnedest to find a way out of town before things really went south....
...unless, of course, those same bondsmagi have his friend (drawing a blank, long day at work) in peril, in which case there'll be hell to pay and, oh yeah, the city might be saved too.
He's a reluctant hero at best. Further, he's a reluctant hero who has occasionally bought into his own press, which is why he's shocked to be threatened. He's the Thorn of Camorr, dammit! How dare this aristo see through his cunning plan to...
I never pitied him. Feared for his life, because he's a damnably cheer-worthy rogue, but never felt sorry for his lot.
[srallen on LJ]
It's reviewers who compared him to Robin Hood. And in the first book, where he has more of a community, there are moments he resembles that. But not here.
As for not being noble, the big appeal of a lovable rogue depends on never examining the morality of his deeds too closely, or assuming that because his victims are rich, they deserve everything he does to them. That also brings in the Robin Hood vibe. But then, if they deserve to be attacked because they're rich, why doesn't Locke deserve to be attacked for being rich?