If you read and understood my prior post, then you know that "because they're evil" isn't a reason at all. You would have understood that alignment is simply a method(if you opt in) for the DM to interpret HOW they are warlike and aggressive.
Which makes "evil" a useless descriptor.
I have enough to worry about. I'll sit down and do in depth thinking for important NPCs and Monsters, but not for run of the mill monster encounters. If YOU want to worry about them all, you can opt into that. Alignment should be there for those of us like me who don't want to do that kind of thing for a group of orcs or whatever for the party to fight.
So you're saying that, if you want the PCs to fight some bad guys, you'd rather go through the MM to determine which monsters are evil, in the right terrain, and of the appropriate CR, rather than grab any
monster that's in the right terrain and of appropriate CR?
Determining alignment makes you go through a whole 'nother step there. If you have enough to worry about, then make it easier on yourself by removing alignment and opening up more options.
Like when you say that it's up to the DM to determine how a creature is warlike, then also saying the monster is evil is an unnecessary step and
puts unnecessary limits on how the DM can play those monsters, especially if there's another monster with a similar description but is given the neutral or good alignment. As an example, elves. A lot of people have pointed out the rather awful things elves have canonically done. According to the 5e MM, elves tried to genocide quaggoths in order to seize their lands, and quaggoths only survived by fleeing underground. I've seen people suggest that Mystaran elves caused unnecessary ecological problems by controlling the weather in a way to make Alfheim into an elven paradise (and thus creating a rainshadow). I admit I don't know if that's canon, but the Mystaran maps I've seen seem to support that idea. Elves in most settings are fairly bigoted, and those in Spelljammer were outright fascist. But elves, as a D&D race, are most often chaotic good
(Is it because elves are pretty and orcs aren't?)
by putting an alignment there, it makes it difficult to DMs to have a race be different on their own world without having to repeatedly remind people that no, on this world,
orcs are mostly neutral and get their aggressions out by becoming mercenaries or playing orcball.
It was actually "often" that was 40-50%. That's what orcs were. "Usually" was simply a majority, so as low as 50.01%. I misremembered.
So that means that WotC itself didn't use its own metrics, which means they're utterly pointless and unsupported--especially since as pro-alignment people frequently like to say, DMs can decide that a particular monster is any alignment they want. Just like, if there's no alignment listed
That was up to the DM. If the DM didn't do that, that's the DM's fault.
That's... a really stupid argument. It's like saying that if WotC put out a broken spell or archetype, it's the DM's fault for not homebrewing a solution.