If I got the difference wrong, then sorry. I suspect examples will work better than a philosophical approach about what a choice is, though.
Maybe in general, but I did initially did use an example, and that led you to think I was talking about something tactical. I'm talking about the nature of choice itself. As in literally all choices. Fundamentally, that involves using scarce means to achieve ends. If you only get to choose one race for your character, that's scarce. The ends part is a lot harder to label, because different players might have different reasons for choosing a particular race, and some of those reasons might not even have anything to do with game mechanics.
Also, as with any choice, it's possible to choose foolishly. I remember there being an old dragon magazine article retooling the monk for the umpteenth time where it was said something like choosing a monk thinking you were getting David Carradine only to be disappointed. That would be an example of a foolish choice. While it may be true that the monk is perhaps the closest choice you have to David Carradine, a lot of players might legitimately hold the view that, while they would rather play David Carradine than play Shrek, they would much rather play Shrek than something that is only 80% Carradine.
All this complicates the task of identifying the ends. But they're always there. In any choice, there's always going to be some looking ahead involved. And all choice has the potential for disappointment. Depending how loosey goosey you want to get with definitions, it's plenty easy to be able justify any example of choice as being tactical and resulting in unequal outcomes. Choice can always appear that way. That doesn't mean it is tactical, if we're using the word tactical in a way that makes meaningful distinctions.
It sounds like you're saying that halfling paladins are objectively bad for the game. Can you elaborate on why?
I haven't said that at all. I likened it to pineapple pizza. What could possibly be more a matter of taste than what people want on their pizza? For that matter, this idea that cookies & milk is somehow a better combination than gouda & OJ is also a matter of opinion.
But I confess, I did bait you on that. Because while we understand it's subjective, we also understand that so many people have such strong negative feelings about pineapple pizza that it's gotten to be something of a cultural meme of what not to do. As was the halfling paladin for a time.
And it's not entirely without justification. If I'm throwing a party and I want to have 6 pizzas waiting for when the guests arrive, and I don't necessarily know who exactly is going to show up or what exactly they'll be in the mood for, pineapple pizza is probably not going to be one of my go-to's. I probably am going to avoid anchovies as well. At least one of them will be plain, for sure. Probably one pepperoni and one house special just because those are classic pizza options. One vegetarian option.
Maybe one will be my favorite. Host privilege. And if I want pineapple and anchovies, so be it. What's the worse that can happen? No one else touches it? I have left-overs. It's fine. But if I don't like it, it's a silly thing to order. Even though it's technically possible there will be enough guests who will enjoy it that it won't go to waste, it's not where the smart money goes.
So when I called for tact in terms of tweaking orange juice to grape juice to go with the gouda, that might be analogous to playing a halfling who wants to be a paladin rather than playing a halfling paladin. Which I actually think is a much more interesting character, who comes to the table with motives. But the point is, it's not just about what that one player wants to play. It's about compromise and playing well with others in cooperative creation of a shared fantasy.
2) In terms of choices, the choice for a wizard between +2 Strength and +2 Intelligence isn't an interesting or colorful trade-off. It's blatantly imbalanced and obvious.
I don't necessarily agree. Which I think is sufficient to strike "blatant" and "obvious." I think you're objectively incorrect on those counts. But if I also happen to be correct in my assessment, it removes it from the "imbalanced" category as well.
To a degree, it's edition specific. If you're playing a version of the game that allows the wizard to fire limitless cantrips out their butthole and the potency of those spells is linked to INT in one way or another, yeah, you might have a point. But certainly in old school, where Intelligence usually does not affect the potency of the spells, and where spells are scarce, such that a wizard will have to a lot of non-wizard stuff through the course of an actual adventure, that undermines the point. I've played a magic-user with 18 STR. It was a frickin' awesome build. The pew-pew power of tossing 3 darts per round, all with that strength bonus applied? I didn't need magic missile. And that freed up slots for other more varied spells.
But there is also an asymmetry at work on a system-agnostic level. Going back to the premise in your original post, we were assuming that characters will tend to play to their strengths. The thing is, when fighters play to their strengths, they do a lot of fighting. Which is a lot more dangerous than sitting back casting spells (short of conjuring powerful beings). Right off the bat, they're not equal activities. No matter how much assume they are or like to pretend they are. No matter how much we think GMs can control it by what proportions of what they're including in the campaign. Some activities are more dangerous than others, and when it comes to danger, the chain is going to break at the weakest link. So there's every incentive in the world to strengthen that link given the choice.
3) Without attribute modifiers, D&D in every edition still has plenty of colorful choices between options. If a given elf character has a 16 Dexterity instead of 18 Dexterity, how much does that really change? If the 16 Dex elf is completely flat flavorless and identical to human, I assert that it doesn't suddenly because flavorful and interesting with 18 Dex.
It's hard to see clear why Elfs seeing in the dark is fine but a bonus to DEX is a bridge too far. Is a bonus when using bows and swords also a problem? Hey, if I'm going to be a fighter and specialize in longbow, I may as well play and elf an stack up another +1 to hit on top of that.