I am not gonna defend my own stats or anything like that but allow me to illuminate my choices, within the given mechanics of 5th edition which is where I used this entire basis. Besides its not just D&D I am intimately familiar with.

But I will address the comments as best as I can.

Warlocks were introduced in 3rd edition, as a mock up class originally for the sole purpose of adding in a different flavor to the typical Cleric and Wizard as an offshoot combination. Put simply; since warlocks by default are either knowledge hungry or power hungry, they are willing to make deals with beings the ultimately know could crush them like a bug to access such knowledge and power. When you take into the accountable factor of wizards being studious and seeking to perfect the use of the Weave to ascend themselves beyond what the mortal races can do (this includes races that also live exceedingly long times). And since their implementation there has been quite a lot of lore friendly conflicts between the wizards and warlocks. Simply for a flavor aspect behind how power and knowledge is obtained. I.e. hard work versus short cuts.

Its not a matter of one dimensional, its a matter of the chosen patron. A demon, demons are greedy by nature. With all the available patrons from Fey, Old Ones, Lost gods, forgotten spirits, hell even some legendary monsters, and of course celestials. When you select a demon there is very little that stops the nature of a demon, with of course the exception of the upper tiers of demon and devil lords along with their arch-dukes and so on. And warlocks derive their power from a deal, fiendish deals require a direct benefit for both the character and the demon in question. Its the only pact that is monochromatic. That's where my notion is coming from, is knowing the straight up nature of fiends. Don't believe me? Look at all the stories of people who made deals with fiends and the fiend got tired of waiting, or bored with the feckless mortal.

I wasn't criticizing their choice of removing it. We all know the alignment system is stupid and needs to be reworked into something entirely new. Merely offering a tangible way to allot character choices, dialogue options and so on without an organic DM allowing adjustments. Its a computer program at the end of the day, if you need further proof of why its a bad choice to have it so loose, look at Mass Effect Andromeda. Interesting idea but the overall application makes the dialogue choices consequence free. Which is why I suggested the four bars, separate effects but gives the player multiple ways to outline their character as an archytpe, a leader, a diplomat and so on. Simply by investing in 2-3 of the lines.

You all seem to mistaking this for an organic game which has far greater variety. If we tried to apply the same level of variety to the game, it would never be finished because each option would have to have a train of cause and effect. The reason video games, need such systems isn't to restrict the player its to make it easier on the designers for the purpose of the story.

As a DM, you can make choices and adjust accordingly, you become the consequence of story telling. But since a video game has to have a beginning, middle and end they need a way to measure outcome and consequence.

People have been mocking me in this thread as if I don't know what I am talking about. But you are all forgetting that the most basic source of this game; is the fact its a program. Its basically a complex visual module for any edition from the Times of Struggles, Ravenloft, the Hoard of the Dragon Queen, The Dragon Wars, the Time of Chaos, Veknas' secrets and so on. They need to weave that story. Even with the first two games they had choices but an end goal. But no one complained about the 'rigid' aspects because a story was weaved.

And that is the purpose; a story needs to be weaved. But we are the ones determining how to get to the end and of course what our choices lead to. Or have people already forgetting the issues with Mass Effect 3's ending?