Kant or Kan

So Kant was a big thinker during the enlightenment period, and he believed that the motive of duty was irrelevant in determining the good will of an action. As Dr.J explained in class, you would still be helping the old lady just not for the right reasons, and that's fine. However, what happens when its you do a good deed, but you end up hurting someone in the end? I mean with the old lady and the money, she just loses money and its okay cause apparently she was a rich widow. She has no body to support and she willingly gave it to you. Yet, what about Robin Hood? He gave back to the poor, but stole from the rich. I mean, the good will was there, the motive was there, but it was still stealing. However, to Robin Hood he felt it was his duty to give back to the poor, and that it was also the riches punishment because they were rich and selfish. However, does that make it ok? Is it ok to do bad things to help good people? I believe that Robin Hood is also a good example of an immoral person being irrational because his subjective and objective principles are opposing. His subjective principle is that its his duty to steal money from the rich to give to the poor even though rational person would automatically think, "No I can' t do this, its still wrong." It goes with the whole, two wrongs don't make a right. However, who would be the better person, Robin Hood, the stealer from greedy selfish mean people, or the guy that intentionally helped an old lady across the street knowing he'd get half a million dollars. Then again, it should be addressed that implying they were his intentions adds certain emotions into it and distracts from the question itself of whether it is still good will.