The aim of this paper is to elaborate tools that would allow us to analyse arguments from authority and guard against fallacious uses of them. To accomplish this aim, the paper extends the list of existing argumentation schemes representing arguments from authority. For this purpose, it formulates a new argumentation scheme for argument from deontic authority along with a matching set of critical questions used to evaluate it. The paper argues that clarifying the ambiguity between arguments from epistemic and deontic authority helps building a better explanation of the informal fallacy of appeal to authority (argumentum ad verecundiam).