Three ways of seeing the Pardoner

The Pardoner is a complex pilgrim but that's not to suggest he's also shrewd, though his humor is possibly misinterpreted. And why should the host have the final say of the Pardoner's intention? I propose that there are at least three ways of reading the Pardoner and his tale with no evidence for any particular interpretation:

1-He is a drunk fool who decides to do a little truth-telling, forgets all that he's said and proceeds to act as if he were anywhere and asks for a contribution. His tale, after all, reads very much like what we might expect his business to sound like. He was drunk, forgetful, foolish to begin with, and caught up in his act.

2-He is wise and crafty but merry-making like the others and - read as irony - the end to his tale, since he clearly remembers that he has told all the others his scheme, is a funny way of capitalizing on the absurdity of his job (and his performance), self-aware and on the look-out for fools who would still buy a pardon but careful by being so obvious. The anger he displays after the anger shown by the host would then be interpreted as anger at the host, not for calling him out as the fool "he really is" but going so far with the condemnation without seeing the humor of the intention. In this case the host is the fool.

3-He is a desperate fool, who might be a little drunk and really does try to pull one over on the other pilgrims. In this case he is too stupid to think they might have remembered his admission and tries to get a little money out of them after telling, what he thinks, is a solidly intimidating tale apt to convince the pilgrims of their sin. In this case the host is totally justified in his anger and the anger the pardoner shows is boarder-line psychotic.