Pathfinder Roleplaying Game: Bestiary 5 (OGL)

Same old crap? You mean Robots, Smilodon, T.Rex, Pixies, D&D Dragons, Minotaur and all other overused stuff you see in every story, movie, book, cartoon ect ect??

I don't think most of Bestiaries 2,3,4 and 5 mythology and cryptid monsters are same old crap.

Wait. Are you talking to me? Because if you are, I think you might be slightly confused. Or I am. Or we both are. I don't know. At least one of us is.

Why does the Annunaki have a bite attack? That's kinda weird.

All in all I'm good with the art, and the content. I was most excited and happy to see the Caligni...I have been wanting a playable Dark Folk for years...the art was a bit disappointing...what with the pointed ears and all....but in general It's a win bestiary ;)

Are dragonkin supposed to be able to have different breath weapons depending on color and stuff? I think there was a white one in Reign of Winter.

Yeah the use of the points confuses me, especially since the devs have gone on record saying that they don't like spell points and don't like psychic magic being so completely different from arcane and divine. I may change it.

How's about this crackpot conspiracy theory I haz that them devs are having those psionic point stuff left alone so that GM's will get used to the psionic powerpoint mechanic, thereby making more more GM's getting comfortable with ultimately using 3pp PF Psionics stuff so that the GMs may start to want to run that sort of stuff for their players, thereby reducing the demand for Paizo to make some official psionic powerpoint stuff (when they already have psychic stuff). ;)

Yeah the dragonkin has the same breath weapon as what chromatic or metallic color it has but it's alignment is not based on color.

How's about this crackpot conspiracy theory I haz that them devs are having those psionic point stuff left alone so that GM's will get used to the psionic powerpoint mechanic, thereby making more more GM's getting comfortable with ultimately using 3pp PF Psionics stuff so that the GMs may start to want to run that sort of stuff for their players, thereby reducing the demand for Paizo to make some official psionic powerpoint stuff (when they already have psychic stuff). ;)

Seriously, people need to get past this false mental construct of 'psychic magic' having 'introduced power points' to Pathfinder.

There is absolutely no difference between Monks having a 'ki pool' from which they can spend 'ki points' to activate powers (e.g. Abundant Step = 2 ki points, Empty Body = 3 ki points) and occult bestiary 'psychic energy' points being spent to activate psychic magic powers. Switch the terminology around and everything still works the same way. Yet for some reason 'psychic magic' is an evil power point system while ki points (and dozens of other examples in Pathfinder) is perfectly fine.

The 'difference' is entirely in your head.

As the guy who was complaining about the the lack of Good Outsiders dedicated to seduction and male-looking paragons of love and beauty, i must sand huge THANK YOU for whomever was responsible for the Gancanagh. They are exactly what I was looking for. Much appreciated.

And the Manasaputras... Whoa. Too much awesome for words. And the implications... Is the material from the Bestiaries canon for the Pathfinder Campaign Setting? Because we might be looking at creatures that are actually older than Pharasma here. I mean... It just huge. Sometimes, the ultimate fate of the Multiverse seems much too bleak and hopeless, and these guys are evidence of, possibly, a birghter future.

Besides...

They've just introduced Galactus in Golarion. A whole race of them. Non-planet eating, sure, but... An antire race of Galactus.

I'm fanboying hard here.

Check out Occult Realms' section on the Akashic Thysiastery. It hints that evil counterparts of the manasaputra exist too. Thurston and I (who designed the manasaputra under Erik's guidance) laid the groundwork for some really lore-heavy stories in the future ;)

Why does the Annunaki have a bite attack? That's kinda weird.

That's probably my bad. When I designed the anunnaki their art hadn't been completed yet and we didn't have a solid description to go on. So I based their appearance off of more draconic/bestial designs. They were much more shape shifting reptilian entities (as anunnaki have mythological ties to Apsu in the real-world). Their "wings" we're also more flesh than artifice.

Mark did a great job of bringing them in line with the art once that was completed, but part of me thinks that a race of shape shifters having a bite attack isn't wildly unusual. :)

So let me get this strait there is another evil outsider group and this one is the counter part to the Manasaputra. Sigh, if every good outsider group has to get a evil counter part then were are the good counter parts to the remaining evil outsider groups.

Lol.

Everyone just likes creating evil and neutral creatures more than they like creating good natured bores.

Just Kiddn.

So let me get this strait there is another evil outsider group and this one is the counter part to the Manasaputra. Sigh, if every good outsider group has to get a evil counter part then were are the good counter parts to the remaining evil outsider groups.

Symmetry is boooring. There's no value in having exactly 3 outsider groups per each alignment, with each having precisely one creature per CR.

I'm toying around with the idea of having a Manusupatra-worshipping temple in my campaign. It'd purpose is to revere and imitate (but not worship) the Manusupatras and train tons of LG monks and psychics. Their deeper goal is to study the cosmic fire and join the cycle of reincarnation.

Check out Occult Realms' section on the Akashic Thysiastery. It hints that evil counterparts of the manasaputra exist too. Thurston and I (who designed the manasaputra under Erik's guidance) laid the groundwork for some really lore-heavy stories in the future ;)

Sweet, thanks for the tip! :) I'm gonna look into it as soon as I get the Occult Realms (Which, now, is going to be sooner than later).

I'm really pumped up about the possibilities this particular group of Outsiders offers... This can be even used to link different campaigns in different settings together.

Imagine a player meeting an old character from a Greyhawk campaign that became a Twilight Pitri :)

Ouch that review seemed rough. But I do kinda see their point even if I disagree on the star rating.

I overall like the book, particularly the vilderavn, hopkin, cursed king, manasaputra, sahkil, and glaistig (the art for the ovinnik is rather cute!).

I'd say one of the negatives for me is that quite a few creatures (like on the archons) get barely any descriptive fluff at all, where others such as the glaistig and vilderavn get quite a bit to them. Also like people mentioned earlier, the crone queens are odd as they are campaign related; they could have been re-fluffed as witch liches or something less specific.

I overall like the book, particularly the vilderavn, hopkin, cursed king, manasaputra, sahkil, and glaistig (the art for the ovinnik is rather cute!).

I'd say one of the negatives for me is that quite a few creatures (like on the archons) get barely any descriptive fluff at all, where others such as the glaistig and vilderavn get quite a bit to them. Also like people mentioned earlier, the crone queens are odd as they are campaign related; they could have been re-fluffed as witch liches or something less specific.

All of them start out with more info (not glaistig amounts, since it's a two pager, but more than the ones with only one or two sentences), but they usually lose from there first when the picture winds up taking up more space than our estimates expect. AKA: copyfitting, the designer's nemesis.

DeciusNero wrote:

I overall like the book, particularly the vilderavn, hopkin, cursed king, manasaputra, sahkil, and glaistig (the art for the ovinnik is rather cute!).

I'd say one of the negatives for me is that quite a few creatures (like on the archons) get barely any descriptive fluff at all, where others such as the glaistig and vilderavn get quite a bit to them. Also like people mentioned earlier, the crone queens are odd as they are campaign related; they could have been re-fluffed as witch liches or something less specific.

All of them start out with more info (not glaistig amounts, since it's a two pager, but more than the ones with only one or two sentences), but they usually lose from there first when the picture winds up taking up more space than our estimates expect. AKA: copyfitting, the designer's nemesis.

Like the Gate Archon?

Mark Seifter wrote:

DeciusNero wrote:

I overall like the book, particularly the vilderavn, hopkin, cursed king, manasaputra, sahkil, and glaistig (the art for the ovinnik is rather cute!).

I'd say one of the negatives for me is that quite a few creatures (like on the archons) get barely any descriptive fluff at all, where others such as the glaistig and vilderavn get quite a bit to them. Also like people mentioned earlier, the crone queens are odd as they are campaign related; they could have been re-fluffed as witch liches or something less specific.

All of them start out with more info (not glaistig amounts, since it's a two pager, but more than the ones with only one or two sentences), but they usually lose from there first when the picture winds up taking up more space than our estimates expect. AKA: copyfitting, the designer's nemesis.

Like the Gate Archon?

The poor gate archon; it's not its fault that the art takes so much space! That one went beyond cutting most of the flavor text and actually had to lose abilities.

I was thinking of making an NPC. He or she would be an NE 7th level spellcaster who is a Sakhil idolizer and has an Episil as a familiar. What class should I use?

EDIT; The NPC should have fear-related abilities. Maybe a witch?

Any chance you could share what some of those abilities were? ^_^

Nutcase Entertainment wrote:

Mark Seifter wrote:

DeciusNero wrote:

I overall like the book, particularly the vilderavn, hopkin, cursed king, manasaputra, sahkil, and glaistig (the art for the ovinnik is rather cute!).

I'd say one of the negatives for me is that quite a few creatures (like on the archons) get barely any descriptive fluff at all, where others such as the glaistig and vilderavn get quite a bit to them. Also like people mentioned earlier, the crone queens are odd as they are campaign related; they could have been re-fluffed as witch liches or something less specific.

All of them start out with more info (not glaistig amounts, since it's a two pager, but more than the ones with only one or two sentences), but they usually lose from there first when the picture winds up taking up more space than our estimates expect. AKA: copyfitting, the designer's nemesis.

Like the Gate Archon?

The poor gate archon; it's not its fault that the art takes so much space! That one went beyond cutting most of the flavor text and actually had to lose abilities.

I guessed the loss of abilities just by how the art looks compared to the stat block.

You know, when sending art orders, there should be a memo that include: "By fitting on a page, we mean a book page, not a web page." or something like that.

I was thinking of making an NPC. He or she would be an NE 7th level spellcaster who is a Sakhil idolizer and has an Episil as a familiar. What class should I use?

Are you familiar with the pact wizard archetype? That might be a good place to start. Make him an illusionist or necromancer obsessed with fear magic.

I understand the art can be quite the issue. Poor gate archon indeed.

Any chance you could share what some of those abilities were? ^_^

Super special ability; feel free to give it to your favorite gate archons. It's pre-development:

Kalindlara wrote:

Any chance you could share what some of those abilities were?

Super special ability; feel free to give it to your favorite gate archons. It's pre-development:

** spoiler omitted **

I deeply endorse this.

Thank you! ^_^

So let me get this strait there is another evil outsider group and this one is the counter part to the Manasaputra. Sigh, if every good outsider group has to get a evil counter part then were are the good counter parts to the remaining evil outsider groups.

Most evil outsiders have a good-aligned counter in the current roster of outsider species. The problem (IMHO) is that good-aligned outsiders don't get as much stage time in products. That's probably because there's more use for 'bad guys' than an over abundance of 'good guys'. :)

That being said, the idea that a counterpart to the Manasaputra is only hinted at. The idea, as Robert and I conceptualized, is that the Manasaputra are the embodiment of good & wisdom with strong ties to the Positive Energy plane. The 'counterparts' would be evil & intelligence, with strong ties to the Negative energy plane.

The Manasaputra are beings who ascended from becoming one with the powers of the universe (or the previous universe). Given that, these theoretical counterparts would be based more on unlocking the secrets of the cosmos through raw intellect, ALA the Skasis Paradigm in New Doctor Who, or similar to how the Ori operate in Stargate.

what about the jyoti, not everything has to have an exact opposite, and there are always individual fallen celestials or risen fiends

what about the jyoti, not everything has to have an exact opposite, and there are always individual fallen celestials or risen fiends

Jyoti have counterparts, the sceaduinar. Personally, I think nightshades (powerful negative energy + made of outsiders) and/or kytons (outsiders focused around personal ascension through.... less than Good methods) are already good enough counterparts to the manasuptra.

OMG people, we need to make reviews with 5 stars! Common!

On person can destroy the chance on a Bestiary 6.

This clearly comes from a

1) D&D fanatic
2) Monster book hater, one that is happy with Bestiary 1 (D&D one) and doesn't care for the rest.
3) Lover of human-based books that is angry that we got Bestiary 5.

Ok, some things could be her opinion, but 2 star ranking is cruel and untrue.

We need to make more positive reviews or this could be the end, and I already know you people are very positive about the book!

OMG people, we need to make reviews with 5 stars! Common!

On person can destroy the chance on a Bestiary 6.

This clearly comes from a

1) D&D fanatic
2) Monster book hater, one that is happy with Bestiary 1 (D&D one) and doesn't care for the rest.
3) Lover of human-based books that is angry that we got Bestiary 5.

Ok, some things could be her opinion, but 2 star ranking is cruel and untrue.

We need to make more positive reviews or this could be the end, and I already know you people are very positive about the book!

See, now you're experiencing how some people might feel while reading your "X sucks, I wish Paizo never prints any more of them because it's stupid, dumb, I hate it, only sad people like it, and I wish they died on fire, because I don't want to ever see it again" posts ;-)

OMG people, we need to make reviews with 5 stars! Common!

Just gave Bestiary 5 my first review ever. A short review, but still.

Nightterror wrote:

OMG people, we need to make reviews with 5 stars! Common!

On person can destroy the chance on a Bestiary 6.

This clearly comes from a

1) D&D fanatic
2) Monster book hater, one that is happy with Bestiary 1 (D&D one) and doesn't care for the rest.
3) Lover of human-based books that is angry that we got Bestiary 5.

Ok, some things could be her opinion, but 2 star ranking is cruel and untrue.

We need to make more positive reviews or this could be the end, and I already know you people are very positive about the book!

See, now you're experiencing how some people might feel while reading your "X sucks, I wish Paizo never prints any more of them because it's stupid, dumb, I hate it, only sad people like it, and I wish they died on fire, because I don't want to ever see it again" posts ;-)

I became like that mostly because everyone HATES on characters, things and monsters I like or don't give them any attention. I call it the Wolverine syndrome.

And I never said people should die on fire, you making things worse like always, If I made it that personal I would have been banned a long time ago.

And yes I let emotions sometimes take over my fingers, BUT I would never give a product bad score because I hate it, did you see a negative review from me on a Science-Fiction-based book or any of the Iron God Ap's? No.
This person clearly didn't liked late-numbered Bestiaries to begin with, seeing how her/his review began, she/he didn't have a big hat on for late numbered Bestairies, probably because she/he only cares for D&D monsters, and after you have done those everything that comes next is similar? (Funny fact is that the only monster that really is similar to me in this book comes straigth from D&D, the Aerial Servant)

Art: Couldn't it be scaled down 25% (or whatever) to fit?

Crone queens: Not sure how they are more 'campaign specific' than, for example, Gearsmen. Sure, Baba Yaga is a unique individual that appears in the Golarion campaign setting... and AD&D 1st edition... and real world mythology. Her having frozen witch daughters is a new Golarion specific campaign detail... but Driders being fleshwarped Drow (rather than made by Lolth) is also Golarion specific. Neothelids got a new backstory too. Basically, what is there about the Crone queens which would prevent someone from using them in a non-Golarion campaign?

OMG people, we need to make reviews with 5 stars! Common!

No, we need to make reviews with as many stars as we see fit to give a product, based on our perception of the product.

On person can destroy the chance on a Bestiary 6.

I sincerely doubt that a 2-review has any real chance of destroying anything.

This clearly comes from a

1) D&D fanatic

I get the distinct feeling that the term "D&D fanatic" is used in derogatory fashion, and that's not cool.

2) Monster book hater, one that is happy with Bestiary 1 (D&D one) and doesn't care for the rest.

Or a gamer with preferences when it comes to monster books that aren't similar to yours. Which doesn't necessarily equate to hate.

3) Lover of human-based books that is angry that we got Bestiary 5.

Yeah...

Ok, some things could be her opinion, but 2 star ranking is cruel and untrue.

Untrue? How so? It's the reviewer's perception of the book. It's not a 5-star review, but that in itself doesn't invalidate it. You may disagree (as do I), but that also doesn't in itself invalidate the reviewer's perception of the book.

We need to make more positive reviews or this could be the end, and I already know you people are very positive about the book!

Keep calm and enjoy the monsters!

Previous Bestiaries have seen some less-than-stellar reviews (Bestiary and Bestiary 2 both received a 1-star review), and yet here we are with a fifth installment.

Or a gamer with preferences when it comes to monster books that aren't similar to yours. Which doesn't necessarily equate to hate.

I get the distinct feeling that the term "D&D fanatic" is used in derogatory fashion, and that's not cool.

Not really, I just experience a lot of hate against D&D monster manuals 2, 3, 4 ect ect on many forums.

Just because many people can't look further than D&D Dragons, Umber Hulks, Displacer Beasts, Kobolds, Mind Flayers, MInotaurs, Orcs, Otyugh, Owlbears and all those other standard-in-Monster Manual/Bestiary 1 creatures.

After those creatures made it into a book, all others are seen as unneccesairy and space-fillers, even if they are extremely different and unique. Many people are already biased before the book is even made.

Its pretty much the same as I give a 1-star rating to a book about Numeria or to a Iron God AP book just because I don't like it. I wouldn't do that because I think that is unfair.

If you already know that a 5th bestiary/monster book will fail you, why buy and rank it at all? And this book has so much different monsters that never seen the light of day in any D&D-based book, that I see many errors in that text.

What we've come to expect from late-instalment bestiaries

Basically, it's bad faith to rate something that you know you will hate for reasons that are completely distinct to quality.

Excellent book, gorgeous art, massive source of inspiration.

I do have a question though:

Nulminds gain PE if a nearby creature casts spells (especially psychic spells), so would 3 nulminds be an unending source of magic? One casts a psychic spell, the other two get PE, so if they each cast spells, they'd never run out of PE. Is that right, or is there some clause I've overlooked?

Reviews are not going to prevent a new hardcover bestiary though sales can;)

Reviews are not going to prevent a new hardcover bestiary though sales can;)

And what if bad previews can keep people from buying it? :-p

Did you read the review I wrote, or did you just look at the stars? I feel like I gave a pretty thorough and well-reasoned reasoned explanation for my rating - I wanted to give it 2.5 stars, but there are no half stars, and I was admittedly in kind of a crummy mood when I wrote it, so I rounded down.

They had some cool stuff in here, but it was not a perfect book, and some of my complaints are echoed in the other reviews, I think I just found them far more glaring.

My conclussion was that the book was a poor value at $45, but that it's worth the $10 PDF.

As far as your forensic profile...

I haven't played D&D in YEARS. I was delighted to see Pathfinder take off after 4th edition came out, and I haven't touched 5th edition.

I actually love bestiaries, and I especially love Paizo's earlier penchant for getting back to the roots of various monsters that have been taken from folklore, and for their reinvention of classic monsters like goblins and ogres. I felt like such creatures, in this installment, had only a superficial connection to their inspiration. It Thought Bestiary 1 was fantastic, Bestiary 2 was pretty good with a couple of flops, Bestiary 3 was potentially the best yet, and I wasn't a huge fan of Bestiary 4. I love a variety of monsters, but I get a little miffed when we have, as another review pointed out, air elementals, invisible stalkers, and aerial servants all running around together.

I'm not sure what you mean by your 3rd point.

Ultimately, I really like Pathfinder, but I feel like there has been a slippage in their quality as they've gotten more popular, sacrificing depth in their writing (which they used to have in spades in like every product) for stuff that is more superficially cool. Compare Rise of the Runelords to Wrath of the Righteous. I can be a little rough on them because I want them to stay on their toes and continue to produce good s%$$. They seem to have a fanbase that is more rabidly loyal than that of Rush, which is healthy for business, but it's no good for quality control if no one ever calls you out on your s@%%.

Did you read the review I wrote, or did you just look at the stars? I feel like I gave a pretty thorough and well-reasoned reasoned explanation for my rating - I wanted to give it 2.5 stars, but there are no half stars, and I was admittedly in kind of a crummy mood when I wrote it, so I rounded down.

They had some cool stuff in here, but it was not a perfect book, and some of my complaints are echoed in the other reviews, I think I just found them far more glaring.

My conclussion was that the book was a poor value at $45, but that it's worth the $10 PDF.

As far as your forensic profile...

I haven't played D&D in YEARS. I was delighted to see Pathfinder take off after 4th edition came out, and I haven't touched 5th edition.

I actually love bestiaries, and I especially love Paizo's earlier penchant for getting back to the roots of various monsters that have been taken from folklore, and for their reinvention of classic monsters like goblins and ogres. I felt like such creatures, in this installment, had only a superficial connection to their inspiration. It Thought Bestiary 1 was fantastic, Bestiary 2 was pretty good with a couple of flops, Bestiary 3 was potentially the best yet, and I wasn't a huge fan of Bestiary 4. I love a variety of monsters, but I get a little miffed when we have, as another review pointed out, air elementals, invisible stalkers, and aerial servants all running around together.

I'm not sure what you mean by your 3rd point.

Ultimately, I really like Pathfinder, but I feel like there has been a slippage in their quality as they've gotten more popular, sacrificing depth in their writing (which they used to have in spades in like every product) for stuff that is more superficially cool. Compare Rise of the Runelords to Wrath of the Righteous. I can be a little rough on them because I want them to stay on their toes and continue to produce good s~!%. They seem to have a fanbase that is more rabidly loyal than that of Rush, which is healthy for business, but it's no...

Ok, ok some good points, but still the Aerial Servant is just one creature, sure there are more similar cases, but most of the creatures are really unique.

But in the end I was getting too emotional about this "What we've come to expect from late-installment bestiaries" sentence, which always angered my soul because in my case I always need to wait 4 bestiaries long to see my favorite movies/mythology/D&D creatures end up in books because I have a very different taste from the Wolverine/Dragon-Generation.

I really only disliked Bestiary 1, mostly because it was just D&D book copy. And I really dislike many overused D&D monsters. Been there done that, I need some new inspiration, and Bestiary 5 gave me far more inspiration than any D&D Monster Manual or Bestiary 1 could ever give me, namely Papinijuari and Su in this book for example are really awesome takes on already cool mythology monsters.

Please give the new dragon type at least a page of background. There's so much stat block that usually the new dragons have zero personality, and I never end up using them. What makes these new dragons different besides a few combat tricks and alternate spell like abilities? The last batch in bestiary four was particularly frustrating: I loved the idea of Outer Dragons but all I got was more monsters with the dragon label. I would rather have had the same amount of space dedicated to background on these guys and just had a page or two reskinning old dragons to fit this great new idea.

I have every confidence Paizo can blow me away; your single-page guides to outsider types do this job brilliantly. I'd just would like dragons to get the same love, so they're worth more than a second glance.

This.

I'd prefer books with half the monsters but enough lore about each of them, rather than loads over loads of almost dull stat blocks.
More monsters are always nice, but there is already more than enough of them, and adding templates too, their number becomes nearly infinite.
Better to have more lore and nice suggestions on how to use the creatures. Especially if many creatures are just another Undead born from cold, another terrain-named Giant, another Fey who loves pranks, another Dragon (with not even that bit of personality), or other such overused themes or dull stuff.

Most creatures spare for the Archon and Dragons have enough fluff in my opinion.

In some cases you just need to use your own imagination and use the stats and the little information given to create your own around it.

Dream Dragon and Nightmare Dragon, i'm sure know what to do with those, the Archons are also pretty obvious.

I always hope to see more fluff about the creatures in the Adventure Paths where they sometimes appear.

I eagerly wait for "Aberrant Dragons Revisited", which will have more than enough information on all these new Dragon types we have been seeing. I admit I'm way more interested in the Outer Dragons than in the new ones, tough.

If they halved the number of monsters in the hardcover bestiary I wouldn't buy them. Besides it is easier to make up your own lore about an existing creature then too make up one from scratch.

Yeah I agree. I don't think all monsters need a lot of flavor text, but I get annoyed at the sentence or two that the new dragons are stuck with. Sure, it's fine if the Chromatic or Metallic dragons don't have much info..they have tons of info written about them both in Pathfinder or earlier in DnD. But the new dragon types? Without the flavor there I don't know why I should use them in preference to the old standbys.

Here's a few cool extra tidbits about the esoteric dragons, except the nightmares, who managed to have their info:

A bestiary with only 100 monsters would mean more fluff yeah, but many groups of outsiders are left in the dust, the line between Science Fiction and Fantasy would be crossed as every monster count, so all the ones you dislike count like 3 times harder than normal. So if half of the monsters are something that you don't like you buy a book of only 50 monsters...

Lesser monsters means harder cuts in types of monsters, so probably the SF monsters are cut then and all others that are a risk as many people dislike those and with only 100 monsters to count that is a serious danger.

I'd rather have less fluff in some cases, it are mostly the cases I don't care about anyway, and also in many cases I make up my own info or see them return in AP stories.

Monster Manual 4 and 5 from D&D 3.5 edition had most fluff, but are also the worst bestiaries/monster manuals i've ever read.

Dragon78 wrote:

So let me get this strait there is another evil outsider group and this one is the counter part to the Manasaputra. Sigh, if every good outsider group has to get a evil counter part then were are the good counter parts to the remaining evil outsider groups.

Most evil outsiders have a good-aligned counter in the current roster of outsider species. The problem (IMHO) is that good-aligned outsiders don't get as much stage time in products. That's probably because there's more use for 'bad guys' than an over abundance of 'good guys'. :)

There aren't good counterparts for bunches of evil outsider groups though; there's just evil counterparts for every good one except Angels (or Agathions, depending on how you count them; Didn't some angels use to be LG? Agathions are all NG but I thought Angel Alignment varied, though I can't find any now). The counterpart of the Oni (kami) aren't all good, though they're all non-evil, and Kytons, Demodands, Divs, Asuras, and Rakshasas don't have good counterparts at all that I know of.