Raven Crowking said:1) It has been pointed out numerous times by numerous people that having to assume possession, compulsion, or illusion in all cases (and certainly in clear-cut cases such as this) would be unreasonable.
Assuming, yes. Admitting the possibility, no. Paladins don't do anyone justice by killing the innocent.
2) Clearly, the tavern owner is an obvious person to assume as an accomplice, as the girl is tied up in his tavern. Take it from there.
Yes, but the very guilt of the first rapist ensures that he knows something. It's entirely possible that the tavern owner might not.
3) I have pointed out, and you have accepted, that "The simple fact that the paladin acted, and remains a paladin proves beyond all reasonable doubt that he is speaking the truth," thus allowing for proof superior to that of an open trial. If the miscreant's relatives do not accept the paladin's word, and seek him harm, the paladin cannot slay them out of hand, but he can attempt to show them that he is honorable (through word and deed) and convince them of the truth.
Actually, I seem to recall the PC's paladin status being the bone of contention now. As such, neither side can really use this as an argument.