Delphince 
"[@Naughtypony2010":](/1838911#comment_7511136
)
There's no denying the motivation behind her design, and considering the target audience, what was settled on was certainly a "safe" decision for helping small children identify the antagonist, but I don't think it was warranted. Looking to the start of the series, one can argue that Nightmare Moon suffered from many of the same shortcuts, making evil look "evil" for the sake of recognition. The thing is, a design that successfully facilitates an identity doesn't make it "good". Gilda, Discord, Trixie, Starlight, etc didn't have to "look evil" to be blatant antagonists, and the audience understood their roles just fine.
While I'm bothered that Tempest was essentially what I'd consider a huge step backwards in confidence towards the audience, it's exacerbated by the cliché nature of the specific choices. Making a character taller than its peers projects "I am important/attractive". This was acceptable for Celestia and Luna, because they were initial characters when the lore was still vague, and their height could have had anything imaginable to do with their status. Fleur de Lis (or Fleur dis Lee), likewise, was a_*supermodel._* Tempest's design, however, had no justification for this incredibly rare body type other than "make her look important and attractive", especially considering her origins. The eye scar? One of the oldest and most recognizable "I'm tough and menacing" aesthetics there is. The broken horn has been a selection in the online pony creator, and carries a stigma as being the choice for OCs designed by young or otherwise amateur creators, most falsely believing that choosing the wildly different option will make their character unique. These tropes in particular are go-to decisions for inexperienced character designers, so for what should be a seasoned designer to incorporate _*all_* of them instead of taking a more subtle or original route is just flabbergasting.
That would be the end of it, but her reception has been overwhelmingly positive, and this might be where I'm seeing through a filter, but the majority of it seems to be regarding her physical appearance. This is where I get triggered: the human nature to overlook what would normally be criticized and instead lavish praise simply because of fame. It bugs me, a lot. There are artists, writers, and actors out there that despite their best efforts and incredible talents, are ignored or have small failings blown out of proportion simply because they aren't "somebody", and others that are worshiped as being the pinnacle of talent or beauty—despite having possibly significant shortcomings to either—because they_*are_* "somebody".
As an example, let me tell you a story. Remember Clay Aiken from and early season of _*American Idol_*? I went to high school with him. He was a quiet, nice, but nerdy (I don't mean that negatively, just painting a picture) guy that girls paid zero attention to. A few years after graduating, he came in second-place on _*AI_*, and suddenly the same girls that had rebuffed him originally now thought he was sweet, cute, and wanted his babies. The guy could sing, but he could sing in high school, and the praise wasn't "his looks are 'meh' but oh what a voice", he was "adorable".
That's my issue. I'll call what's good, "good", but I'll also call what's bad, "bad". Tempest's design is bad. The only thing about her appearance that I approve of is her colors are balanced; dark, but balanced. Her eyes follow the tertiary color rule for complimentary colors that makes them "pop". People are absolutely welcome to like her, or love her, or have pillows of her, but to cite lazy design choices as being "great" is not only fake, it's annoying.
There's no denying the motivation behind her design, and considering the target audience, what was settled on was certainly a "safe" decision for helping small children identify the antagonist, but I don't think it was warranted. Looking to the start of the series, one can argue that Nightmare Moon suffered from many of the same shortcuts, making evil look "evil" for the sake of recognition. The thing is, a design that successfully facilitates an identity doesn't make it "good". Gilda, Discord, Trixie, Starlight, etc didn't have to "look evil" to be blatant antagonists, and the audience understood their roles just fine.
While I'm bothered that Tempest was essentially what I'd consider a huge step backwards in confidence towards the audience, it's exacerbated by the cliché nature of the specific choices. Making a character taller than its peers projects "I am important/attractive". This was acceptable for Celestia and Luna, because they were initial characters when the lore was still vague, and their height could have had anything imaginable to do with their status. Fleur de Lis (or Fleur dis Lee), likewise, was a
That would be the end of it, but her reception has been overwhelmingly positive, and this might be where I'm seeing through a filter, but the majority of it seems to be regarding her physical appearance. This is where I get triggered: the human nature to overlook what would normally be criticized and instead lavish praise simply because of fame. It bugs me, a lot. There are artists, writers, and actors out there that despite their best efforts and incredible talents, are ignored or have small failings blown out of proportion simply because they aren't "somebody", and others that are worshiped as being the pinnacle of talent or beauty—despite having possibly significant shortcomings to either—because they
As an example, let me tell you a story. Remember Clay Aiken from an
That's my issue. I'll call what's good, "good", but I'll also call what's bad, "bad". Tempest's design is bad. The only thing about her appearance that I approve of is her colors are balanced; dark, but balanced. Her eyes follow the tertiary color rule for complimentary colors that makes them "pop". People are absolutely welcome to like her, or love her, or have pillows of her, but to cite lazy design choices as being "great" is not only fake, it's annoying.