Let's start with this little piece of rudeness. Regardless of what you may feel, my argument against your comparison is not being made on my part for the sake of argument. I am approaching this topic in good faith. This does, however, reveal about your lack of good faith when approaching mine. I genuinely have issues of disagreement with what you wrote, namely in recognizing differences in how storytelling processes transpire across media. For example, one of the big steps of film criticism was in delineating how its storytelling processes were distinct from novels and literary criticism. It's likewise now something that we are increasingly recognizing and identifying in video games as a form of interactive storytelling media, and there are many indie games, in particular, that are exploring this phenomenon. And it is something that will likely become reexamined in the case of tabletop roleplaying games, especially with the rise of tabletop streaming.
The issue I raise is not about what makes for an entertaining story or whether it is desired. I am aware that the trope regarding hierarchical conflict you mention is prevalent. And we are all hopefully aware that drama and conflict drive stories. Nor have I somehow claimed as per your assertion here that things "have to EXACT to be compared."
Instead, it's about recognizing the critical differences between media entertainment in how that drama and character conflict are generated for those stories. Novels are authored by creative authors who have unrestricted control over all characters, the dramatic voice, and the narrative. There is no player agency. Players do not create characters in these stories. Players do not determine the backstory for these characters. Character choices are all dictated by the whims of the author (and possibly editor suggestions/demands). The author drives the drama and conflict of the narrative through their creative choices. The author determines what conflicts they want their characters to face and how those conflicts will resolve. So the character choices and conflicts about the social obligations the character faces stem entirely from an author who wants to create that story. Prevalence does not somehow inherently make the story trope good. It only makes it a choice selected by the author for their story. And people who engage that story element as readers may even find that character conflict unnessary, superfluous, cliché, or boring. But as readers, they do not get a collaborative say in the choices of that character or the conflict imposed by the social agency (e.g., family, organization, government, etc.).
In the case of tabletop roleplaying games, these things are emergent collaborative processes driven by multiple agents: i.e., the DM and the players. IME, players often provide input into what story conflicts they want their characters to face and possibly also the ones they don't, as per this discussion. E.g., "I don't want the DM to engage my character's gender/race/sexuality as a forefront issue"; "No rape/slavery/baby murder"; "I don't want my character's family killed (i.e., fridged) just for the sake of creating sensationalized drama"; "I want to deal with being regarded as a heretic by the church but I also want my deity as a non-intervening background element whose agency does not factor into this conflict." I don't think that players hoping to "Background" certain elements are looking to avoid story obligations or having any conflicts surrounding their character choices. They are indicating what sort of choices that they are hoping to make and what sort of obligations they prefer engaging in the story for their characters. "Look, I'm not interested in a [corrupted church hierarchy]/[my deity/temple sends me on a mission]/etc. story for my paladin/cleric. I would prefer just focusing on how my PC's piety (and skillset) engages this other aspect of the campaign you pitched."
This difference in collaborative agency provides a significant point of distinction between the other media you alluded to and roleplaying games. This significantly impacts the nature of how conflict and drama are produced/resolved. I fail to see how recognizing this somehow makes me argumentative for the sake of being argumentative. Developing this awareness of media for me is fundamentally crucial for becoming a better tabletop storymaker as both a DM and player.
I'm not sure how this makes your position more favorable. It makes it even less of a negotiation performed in good faith.
Except you have repeatedly asserted for your own case a scenario in which there is no genuine desire to "work together," because you have in no uncertain terms proclaimed that any player of a cleric or warlock will play your prescribed way or not at all.
"Will no one think about the well-being the poor, powerless DM?!"