Didn't the Mattock of the Titans require someone to be at least six feet tall in order to use? I might be thinking of a different item, and I'd be surprised if they kept that requirement in 5E, but the principal still stands. The crunch is only valid because it accurately reflects the fluff. If you change the fluff, then you need to change the crunch to reflect that, or else it undermines the validity of the model.
Major fluff changes are home brew. Minor ones wouldn't be. Any change to fluff, though, should be run past your DM just in case it goes against something in the setting or would be disruptive in some way unknown to the player. Unless of course the DM gives free reign. I give my players quite a bit of leeway to come up with stuff. We've been playing together for anywhere from 13 years to 36 years, depending on the person.
Or I could just homebrew in consequences to people's actions. Seem like that would be a lot easier.
But is there a spoon?
You're assuming a Warlock pact that is:
Still just sounds like wanting to avoid the consequences to your actions.
Still just sounds like being blind to the storytelling possibilities of more benign or even benevolent patrons because of dogmatic one-true-wayism.
Because you can never, ever cross your patron, even accidentally, right?
I'd certainly excuse you for that being your first thought, but surely you realize this isn't the only possibility? I picked this example because I knew it is polarizing. Personally I love the flavor baked into the Warlock's pact, but if I had a player that had made a Warlock and played out the idea before, and if they pitched me a more interesting character concept, but the Warlock's features modeled it the way they wanted, I wouldn't tell them "no".
The accuracy needed of any giving fluff fitting it's corresponding crunch is purely subjective. I could make my spells magical potatoes and the only people who needed the connection is that table.
