I think you're trying to make the processing compensate for the light that wasn't quite there, which is always difficult to pull off.
I also think all three, even the "normal" one have raised shadows in the tree branches that would be better left dark, as that's how we generally see them.
The first is a good attempt at bringing out the foreground texture and making the figures read better, and is probably the most effective overall, as the third is naturalistic but a bit dull. IMO, you could probably improve the results by layering 1 with 3 in Photoshop, and masking it selectively, so that you use less HDR in the areas you don't want the viewer's eye drawn to, such as the grass. Keep the texture boost for the central path, the figures and the church, IMO. Use a soft brush for the masking and the transitions should be reasonably subtle.
In the second image, the HDR process has done ugly things to the colours. Don't know what you used, but Photomatix used to be notorious for this back in the day. Reducing the saturation of the yellows will get the grass looking a bit less radioactive
But I think this one is a bit surplus to requirements unless it's a look you happen to like.