So firstly, patrons can't actually revoke the powers they've given to their warlocks. Secondly, while I applaud Larian's attempt, they've gone about paladins in the a way that's simultaneously overblown and unimaginative. But y'know, people have said that the Oathbreaker knight is closer to a warlock patron than anything reasonably associated with paladins so maybe Larian will surprise me and give me patron interactions thatactually allow me to express my character as a person through dialogues and not just have to play out what Larian thinks a warlock should be. I really don't care about gameplay, I care about interactions that let me demonstrate through dialogue the kind of person my character is. Oathbreaker paladins get to express why they broak their oath or if they feel like they broke it at all, so more of that and I'll not only be happy with warlock patrons but probably change my whole opinion on the game. As of now I expect there to be one stock patron for each subclass and they'll be pretty set and with only minor direct interactions where it doesn't matter which patron you chose. Except in areas where a patron would have unique expertise.
It's really not an issue of "patrons can't" as much as it's an undefines area in D&D...generally warlock-patron relations are left to the DMs are is the punishment for what happens should a warlock cross his patron. So Larian is free to handle the matter however they like. I have seen DMs who outrigs said ok, you now lost all of your powers to a warlock that crossed his patron one too many times. Will Larian handle it that way. probably not, it's more of an extreme edge case scenario. But regardless, that is not the point, the point is there might be serious issues with our patrons depending on how Larian handled this mechanic and how they make the pacts work for custom characters.
