I apologise. All too often I see this quick dismissive approach to comparisons.
Okay, cool. I likewise promise that I will show a similar willingness to listen in good faith.
In essence, if I'm understanding correctly, you're saying given the collaborative nature between DM and player in rpgs as well as this backgrounded element, hierarchical conflict might be off the table as a trope to be explored.
More or less. It may not be a case of not exploring hierarchical conflict, but a matter of which ones. A warlock player, for example, may not necessarily want a foreground exploration of their pact. They may be more interested in exploring the hierarchical conflict between themselves and their family. The pact may play a role in this relationship or ethically inform how the player understands this relationship, but the patron-warlock relationship would not be the primary focus of conflict.
Great! But I was discussing hierarchical content in general.
Due to the nature of this forum, it can be a hurdle to backtrack the original context of discussion. So how would you paraphrase your own argumentative thrust about "hierarchical content in general"? That it can be and is often a source of narrative conflict?
I have no issue with this if DM and player agree as I've said in a prior post.
You must definitely have, and I think that many of us in thread on various sides of this matter do recognize that about your position and respect that.
Hmmm, to me it sounds more like what content is being permitted for drama purposes since the player is backgrounding certain elements - that's less nature and more what topics are off limits.
I would still say that these are issues that stem from the collaborative social contract nature of play that are essential parts of its nature.
And yet earlier (upthread) you mentioned that the DM talk to the player out of the game on the same basis.
That was me. But it was not, as you insist here, being done on the same basis. That's a false equivalence. Discussing these issues out-of-game is (1) how mature adults should handle most situations, and (2) it does not disrupt play (for the player and others!) by turning the game into a proxy battleground for an issue best settled between people.
However I don't think something like a warlock's patron or paladin's oath would be ok to background in my game (luckily I've never had a player who even suggested something like this). Ultimately I feel those are some of (if not the) major thematic elements of those classes you have chosen to play, so my first question would be why pick a warlock (as opposed to a sorcerer, wizard, etc) if you aren't interested in exploring those specific thematic elements... because as a GM I most certainly am (and yes it would affect my enjoyment in running the game as well as the enjoyment of the other players in my particular group who would be interested in the narrative around the dynamics of the relationship).
I don't think it is necessarily the player saying, "I don't want to explore those specific thematic elements." In the case of the patron/deity, it seems more like a matter of the player signalling to the DM about how much desired authority and narrative prominence the DM can and will exert over this aspect of their character. The warlock player may want to explore the pact relationship in a manner that honors and respects their own sense for how that relationship should play out from their character-side perspective. They may want the pact relationship as a warlock, but not want that as a prominent narrative element, but, rather, one that informs their decision-making for the actual primary issues of the campaign. They may not want, for example, their patron popping out of the narrative bushes and dictating new terms of agreement on them, betraying them, operating in ways that the player believes mischaracterizes the patron or their relationship, etc. I think that a big part of the contention is that the patron/warlock or deity/cleric relationship has a certain intimacy or not too insignificant overlap in regards to the player's sense of their character concept. And the player may not want the DM to tread on that character concept via their use of the patron/deity.