I have loosely modeled my character, Syrania, after Satan. Primarily in that she is beautiful and manipulative, wishing only to corrupt and to destroy--living embodiment of evil kind of stuff. Kind of like the opposite of the "chosen one" you see in media everywhere.
But how does a GM roleplay such a character in a manner that leaves that impression on the players? A 41 Charisma is higher than any published stat block (that I'm aware of). How do you roleplay something with more charm and beauty than Aphrodite and the cunning and vileness of Asmodeous?
Hey no, hey now, Asmodeus isn't vile, he just wants people to do what they say they would do, andi f they don't then TORTURE FOREVER!
aahha
Good question though.
You can' t possibly give her a charisma of 41, I don't see any reason to as a GM so I wouldn't.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Never doubt RD's ability to boost one aspect of a character to ridiculous levels, Orange.
That said, it'd likely require personal knowledge of the PCs, namely what they find charming. As for cunning, that's easier than it sounds. You don't have to set up infinitely complex plans, you just have to stay at least 1 step ahead of the PCs and bluff them into believing that you're more than 1 step ahead.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Based on the description of Syrania, I don't really see her as a Satan type.
She seem more bent on whole sale destruction a la Galactus (although a more pleasing appearence), than subtle corruption of mankind.
But given that her thing is using lies and deceit to further her goals, I'd primarily use her as such, if she was to meet the players.
Although it should be avoided to make the easy "your trusted NPC/Quest-giver betrays you in the end"-plot, it would seem like the way she would interact with them.
Part of her seems to be about anything other than the face-to-face confrontation. As such, she would surely have one of her stronger minions (or possibly someone else's) in place, as the apparrant mastermind. She will possibly play the part of the stereotypical innoncent child the heroes must sacrifice to stop the ultimate evil (of course she has measures set in place to survive said sacrifice). And while the sacrifice might stop the current predicament, the act itself have set new plans in motion.
If she inevitably is confronted by the heroes (and only now I am trying to answer your question...), I could see her acting different ways. As an ultimate evil, she is probably arrogant as any evil mastermind. But she might just as well try to convince the heroes of the merit of her plans (real or imagined).
But that is highly determined by her actual motivation. She hates all sentient beings and wish to destroy it. Why is that?
P.S. Mechanically, I think you should find skill points to give her a great sense motive bonus. Cunning and guile, especially when making elaborate schemes based on other people reactions, is all about knowing your pawns.
The best deceivers convince you to do what they want without asking.
However, it's difficult to have a truly effective manipulative character in a game unless you yourself can act the part. Forcing players to play along based on die rolls will only lead to resentment and frustration.
Yeah, it's really hard to play manipulative, since the NPCs dont (well,they do, but your players will hate you for it) have the same tools as the PCs.
But her actual personallity? She is intelligent, charismatic, but not terribly wise, the perfect combo for "secret arrogance". Her charisma is so high that the mere idea of someone NOT obeying her is ABSURD. But she's still charming to everyone, laughing at their stuidity behind their back. Considering how successful she has been in the past, arrogance would NOT be surprising. She's destroyed worlds before. Why would these creatures be any less stupid?
Still, I'm surprised she's neutral evil; neutral evil is manipulative and selfish, but I dont see them as destructive. However, her ENTIRE focus seems to be destruction, and I dont really understand WHY she does it. WHY she hates everything so much (which strongly suggests CE to me, but I dont want this to devolve into an alignement discussion) is really important in this respect, because now I'm not seeing any motivation beyond "for the lulz". As a player, I would find it deeply unsatisfying to try to discover her secrets and finding out she has no satisfying reason. (And considering she destroyed the cult who raised her, I'm pretty sure she isnt taking anything they said seriously anymore; she's smart enough to know better).
I might have a counter for her; I created this homebrewed archetype (called the dark clerk, a int-ninja that specializes in ferreting out lies) that could act as a foil. I'm just spitballing though.
But how does a GM roleplay such a character in a manner that leaves that impression on the players? A 41 Charisma is higher than any published stat block (that I'm aware of). How do you roleplay something with more charm and beauty than Aphrodite and the cunning and vileness of Asmodeous?
So, you're the GM? I'm confused because you say "my character".
Assuming you're the GM, and based on the description of this character, I don't imagine you're going to be doing much RPing of this character. She sounds like a behind-the-scenes character who doesn't directly address the PCs at all.
If you're familiar with Wheel of Time, she reminded me a bit of Graendal.
|
All npc with high charisma manipulator type basically plays the same really. It frankly doesn't matter how high your charisma is past 20+. Nymphs,Glabrezu, Succubus, Nocticula etc...it's just a question of scale in my opinion.
Nymphs and dryads are busy seducing various people to protect their dwellings.
Beginning succubus deals with various town, cities sometime infiltrate kingdom courts. Demon lords manipulator, seduce other demon lords and have them fight against each other and backstabbing lovers to gain more power.
Sure there is the mechanical benefit of having a high charisma but usually unless you have a supernatural ability associated with it or spellcasting...you just have a easier time making social rolls. I'm surprised that you didn't take the path ability from trickster when you say something it is always the truth unless someone is shown the irrefutable truth, master of lie or whatever it is called.
You'd be a commanding presence, someone completely worthy of being second in command, but for some reason just not cut out to be number one. You'd never be satisfied with whatever station you find yourself in, no matter how sweet a gig it is, because you're never 100% in charge.
You're good at influencing people, a master really, to do what you want without them realizing it wasn't their idea to do so. You play along, sweet as can be, until you are questioned or rebuffed. Then you turn 180 and become a completely irrational kind of angry and lash out.
Part evil genius/mastermind, part natural leader, part petualant child.
You could play her as if she had that old saint template from D&D 3.5. Evil, after all, is well versed in being slick. Just have her have this unearthly kinda glow, one you feel instead of see. Her arguments carry weight, her voice is perfectly pitched and fits perfectly into the rhythm of the discussion.
The heroes should know that she is right, of course. To disagree with what she has to say seems foolish and childish. They're not blind after all. I wouldn't suggest forcing them to do this or that, just imply heavily they might being feeling stupid doing thing doesn't like.
Kinda like"
"She's got some kind of aura around her. You can't see it, but you can feel it. The moment she steps into the room, you know she's there. A part of you wants to get closer to her, so she what she going to say."
"Her voice is its own form of magic, each syllable a song, each word a symphony. You find yourself- not necessarily agreeing with everything she says, but definitely understanding her point of view, completely. A part of you wants to agree with her, and you can see that she does have all very good points..."
"What she asks isn't such a big deal. Easy, after all you have done. And you know if you please her, if you do as she asks- and she does just ask, not order about or command- if you do as she asks, things will be better. Its a fact. Good things and her requests go hand in hand..."
|
However, her ENTIRE focus seems to be destruction, and I dont really understand WHY she does it. WHY she hates everything so much (which strongly suggests CE to me, but I dont want this to devolve into an alignement discussion) is really important in this respect, because now I'm not seeing any motivation beyond "for the lulz". As a player, I would find it deeply unsatisfying to try to discover her secrets and finding out she has no satisfying reason. (And considering she destroyed the cult who raised her, I'm pretty sure she isnt taking anything they said seriously anymore; she's smart enough to know better.
If I might offer a counter point-of-view, sometimes knowing the motivations are less exciting. The more we learned about Boba Fett, the less cool he was.
'For the lulz' is a perfectly valid motivation (even though I agree it skews more toward CE) and one of the most satisfyingly villainous. Although I don't remember the name exactly, one of the most chilling things I remember reading in one of the "True Crime" books I used to obsess over was when they finally caught a prolific serial killer who immediately confessed to everything. When they asked him why he did it, he shrugged, and said, "Because I could." The thought of it still makes me shudder slightly.
It needs to be played correctly, and you will really need to plumb unfathomed depths of depravity to make it effective. But when it works, it works.
|
A successful manipulator will make things seem to be the other persons idea. People are more invested in their own ideas than those of others. Sales tactics are useful here. Don't push the sale lead the customer down a path that makes them feel that a purchase is as a result of their own choices.
The best evil characters I have run did not antagonize the players but actually assisted them in a time of need and then used that goodwill to get the PCs to do a small favor. Sometimes they set up the time of need.
e.g. Send trolls to attacks PCs. After the battle stumble upon them and provide healing and other magical support. Oh by the way I am fleeing from the castle of King Wodewick who stole the "Gem of Holiness" from my father. No, I could not ask you to help me. Wodewick is a powerful and wicked sorcerer. He would surely smite you. Well if you insist I have a few items that may assist you.
It is more helpful if he sends them against other evil enemies (for example if Wodewick is evil). The players will thrash Wodewick and return the Gem of Holiness.
Then the next step. Oh, Wodewick has corrupted the gem. I can purify it but I need a few things.
You can repeat as necessary. The player's faces when you reveal the true plan will be priceless.
This works best if there is a prominent bad guy (Wodewick) to distract the PCs from the real bad guy.
However, her ENTIRE focus seems to be destruction, and I dont really understand WHY she does it. WHY she hates everything so much (which strongly suggests CE to me, but I dont want this to devolve into an alignement discussion) is really important in this respect, because now I'm not seeing any motivation beyond "for the lulz". As a player, I would find it deeply unsatisfying to try to discover her secrets and finding out she has no satisfying reason. (And considering she destroyed the cult who raised her, I'm pretty sure she isnt taking anything they said seriously anymore; she's smart enough to know better.If I might offer a counter point-of-view, sometimes knowing the motivations are less exciting. The more we learned about Boba Fett, the less cool he was.
...
I guess, being a guy that enjoys story, i like knowing more & I like when i contributes, but I also agree that keeping motives secret can be more interesting... but only if they're crappy to begin with. (or at least that's what I've observed in a lot of fiction)
I'll admit, on the villainy spectrum, I tend more towards LE & NE; CE always seems so wasteful to me. When I look at Syrania, someone with SO MUCH POWER, who can clearly manipulate worlds, I think "why is she wasting her time destroying them?" With that kind of power she could have an empire like no other (LE), or a secret empire like no other, but she wastes her powers destroying things. As I see her, she is a savage beast; a clever and charismatic one, but one who deserves nothing more than death. (IE, knowing her history, I would do nothing more than slay her, no discussion, no wasted time. I'm neutral good, not stupid good). If you want to keep this character "interesting", you've got to make sure that the players have NO knowledge of her history, because otherwise I dont see her beeing able to use that charisma against them (except for spellcasting of course).
The more I think about Syrania, the harder time I have of seeing her in action. It's really hard to evaluate the behavior of someone who's manipulatively destructive. My mind is having problems bringing together her destructive goals & constructive (the whole buildup with manipulation) really doesnt "jive" with my mind.
|
|
I can actually see this as a NE character. She's the Daemonic, ultranihilistic sort. CE glories in the chaos and pandemonium of destruction. This character seems just want everybody to die.
I actually did play a similar character to this (High CHA, low WIS) who was a manipulative backstabber. He was CE, though, and it was more like he had long term plans, but was just too short sighted and ill-tempered to see them through. (e.g. His backstory was a similar betraying those closest to him, but it was due to a bunch of imagined, backhanded sleights that warranted swift and disproportionate retribution.)
I think this character could work even knowing her backstory, so long as it is presented the right way. Let's summarize:
A cult believed her to be a great hidden evil and raised her to be such. She lured a bunch of angels into a deadly trap to steal their powers, and using that power immediately turned on her cult and then plunged her planet into interracial warfare that wiped out all life on the planet.
Now, to put it in a way that's not TECHNICALLY a lie:
Kidnapped by a cult before she was even born, Syrania tricked her captors with the aid of angelic beings. They gave her divine power, through which she was a beloved ruler of her planet for many generations. When she left to find other worlds in need of her particular sort of aide, she left behind a planet that was perfectly at peace from now until the end of time.
Even better, since her power was technically given by angels, she could still radiate an aura of good, even though she's evil to the core.
"La plus belle des ruses du diable est de vous persuader qu'il n'existe pas."
-- Baudelaire
The finest trick of the devil is to persuade you that he does not exist. This NPC should destroy everything the PCs ever loved, yet they'll be looking for any cause, any focus for their anger, anyone to blame or seek revenge on...anyone except her, that is.
"La plus belle des ruses du diable est de vous persuader qu'il n'existe pas."
-- BaudelaireThe finest trick of the devil is to persuade you that he does not exist. This NPC should destroy everything the PCs ever loved, yet they'll be looking for any cause, any focus for their anger, anyone to blame or seek revenge on...anyone except her, that is.
Eh, I think what this char represents is simply too far from what I enjoy (both as player facing an enemy & as a GM playing an enemy) to have significant insight. I dont even hate this character, I simply dont want it to exist.
As for what you've said lamontius, I would take that kind of behavior (from a GM) very personally, and would probably blame them (rather than any BBEG). It's not very "reasonable" of me, but that kind of BBEG will never give a satisfying conclusion, since at best you defeat the enemy while loosing everything else.
Be careful with this character Ravingdork. Depending on how you play her, you could lose friends/players if they dont have the right expectations coming into the game. If a GM played a BBEG as lamontius suggests (without expecting an emotionally destructive game), I would probably never play with them again.
Edit: this thread has all but confirmed to me that I am neutral tending lawful. So I guess this thread has helped me learn about myself?
Williamoak, have you ever read a Ravingdork thread before? His characters, concepts and quandaries are not exactly run of the mill.
The suggestion I gave him is for him, not for you or any other player.
I may tone down the destruction angle a bit and focus more on the corruption (though her first homeworld is still doomed).
EntrerisShadow, Lamontius, I particularly enjoyed your advice.
Williamoak, have you ever read a Ravingdork thread before? His characters, concepts and quandaries are not exactly run of the mill.
The suggestion I gave him is for him, not for you or any other player.
Sorry, didnt mean to offend, but I'm giving my feedback of what I see this character as; you (and quite a lot of other people) have given a lot of fitting ideas. And what seems to "fit" with this character does not "fit" with me. I'm not selfish enough to assume I'm the only one who thinks like me, so I'm just stating how I would react. Others might react in the same way, I cant be sure. But I believe this is a risky BBEG to use, and I think it's worth being aware of that.
And yes, I know ravingdork tends to stick to unusual stuff. But it is HARD to make a compelling BBEG, and it's fun that he's looking for the feedback of others. What Karkon suggested (without the destructive aspects that are part of Syrania'a backstory) I would find quite interesting, it's just this specific case (of manipulation + destruction) that rubs me the wrong way.
Edit: More emphasis on corruption could be interesting. It has at least a bit of reversibility (in all but the most extreme cases). I guess I see a lot of difference between destruction beeing the final goal, rather than just a consequence of other goals (IE corruption)(kinda like dark sun).
Hope my off-topic hasnt bugged you too much Ravingdork, the ideas of this character have simply gripped my mind.
Well, actually looking at her statblock -
So she's a nihilistic thousand year old manipulative minion master who looks like a 10 year old girl, since she's an immortal halfling with Childlike. So she's more like the cute yet creepy kid out of a horror movie turned to 11 than she is Aphrodite+Asmodeus. Neat picture for her, btw.
She also seems a bit... weak... in an actual fight. While she has wild arcana and high save DCs... my gut response is that she'd do well in a duel, but she's in serious trouble if she has to fight an adventuring party, especially one that bothers with magic circles vs. evil.
I'm now thinking of the blue dragon write-up from Dragons Revisited, which had a line about how if an older blue dragon is actually being confronted by adventurers, something has gone deeply, terribly wrong. The blue dragon would rather keep several steps removed and wait for them all to die of old age than face them in battle. If she comes across people actually dangerous to her, her wisest course of action is to stay the hell away from them.
However, Syriana seems a bit crazier than a blue dragon.
Based on what she's able to do, if for whatever reason she's actually making contact with a group of skilled adventurers (i.e., exactly the thing that can kill her), she could use her impressive disguise check along with Display of Charisma to pass herself off as some sort of angel/cherub, and possibly recruit the party for her own ends - pitting them against other evil forces that just happen to be standing in her way.
Perfect Lie wouldn't be a bad power to have, but Perfect Lie crumbles before the truth, while just making a +62 bluff check doesn't.
She can fake being a nice person (can even take 10 on it, in fact), so have her fake being a nice, pleasant, considerate person. The only initial clue the party has to something being wrong should be that she turns up blank on detect good.
Oh, hey, she doesn't have sense motive. That's funny - so she's awesomely deceptive, but she can't read people worth squat. Perhaps there's an overwhelming arrogance that underlies everything she does, and she's genuinely puzzled when people don't want to do what she asks of them.
Perhaps occasionally she takes risks to charm, and over time corrupt, something bad-ass - something that could actually protect her if something nasty came after her. Having fallen angels or tarnished metallic dragons in her service could be interesting, perhaps?
I was seriously considering dropping Perception for Sense Motive. What do you guys think?
Anyone ever see the film, The Ninth Gate? Perhaps I will play her like the hot blonde who led Johnny Depp deeper and deeper down the rabbit hole.
So, you're the GM? I'm confused because you say "my character".
I'm neither I suppose. This is a character that I randomly cooked up a while ago and, should she ever see play, I imagine she would better fit the role of BBEG NPC rather than a PC.
"She's got some kind of aura around her. You can't see it, but you can feel it. The moment she steps into the room, you know she's there. A part of you wants to get closer to her, so she what she going to say."
"Her voice is its own form of magic, each syllable a song, each word a symphony. You find yourself- not necessarily agreeing with everything she says, but definitely understanding her point of view, completely. A part of you wants to agree with her, and you can see that she does have all very good points..."
"What she asks isn't such a big deal. Easy, after all you have done. And you know if you please her, if you do as she asks- and she does just ask, not order about or command- if you do as she asks, things will be better. Its a fact. Good things and her requests go hand in hand..."
Nice descriptions. I just might steal those.
Karkon, though your advice is good, your example seems a little transparent.
She seems like a combination of Lobo, Darkseid and somthing a bit more subtle. She will be honest to no one. Pehaps no one that meet her will know that she is the architect of the war or what other catastrophe she is working on. I guess she will be growing in arrogance with her growing succes. An she may make a mistake.
I kind of think she may have a puppeter her self. Pehaps she is really just a simulacrum of the Real her?
I have actually played a character with an end statline that included 30+ intelligence and 40+ charisma. Wisdom was a mere 20, though. The campaign ran over about two and a half years.
She ended her adventuring career as the Queen of the Fey. While not evil, she was compulsively manipulative. Every nation on the surface of the world might dance on her strings, should she care to pull on them. She helped a mortal rise to godhood without him realising she had a hand in his apotheosis.
She arranged for the fey bloodline to be strongly associated with nobility and even godly ancestry, to the point where it was likely that any fey-blooded individual might be suspected of being a heir to a throne somewhere.
|
|
Karkon, though your advice is good, your example seems a little transparent.
If I made them less transparent I would need to spend several pages writing them. Also, you get to see the who the BBEG is from my example. The players don't get that and they tend to assume that people who help them must be on their side.
My goals when running an actual campaign like this are to provide all the information needed to discover the true villain but to present it one very small piece at a time. In a recent game I had the PCs chasing after about two dozen rare books and when they found a book I would give them a one page super abridged version. Often the clue that the BBEG was not really the BB and that another NPC was the BBEG was just the subject and the author.
Hard to really explain but by the time they had all 24 books one player had actually pieced 70% of it out but was not quite sure until I revealed the keystone piece of information.
It is funny how well it works. You just need one extra bad guy to distract the players attention while the real bad guy works in the background and just comes up once in a while. I tend to give the PCs a neutral patron who sends them on missions against the EG.
Getting the players to focus on on NPC is as easy as having the EG attack or steal something the PCs were assigned to protect. You are the PCs source of information so if you give them lots of information about the EG but little information about the BBEG they will focus on the EG. By the time the BBEG becomes a real threat the players should have received enough information to understand the threat.
Often they don't perceive the true threat until I hit them with the truth via an attack, or betrayal, or a sage NPC who gives them the final pieces they need to figure it out. I cherish this moments.
|
|
Karkon, though your advice is good, your example seems a little transparent.
If I made them less transparent I would need to spend several pages writing them. Also, you get to see the who the BBEG is from my example. The players don't get that and they tend to assume that people who help them must be on their side.
My goals when running an actual campaign like this are to provide all the information needed to discover the true villain but to present it one very small piece at a time. In a recent game I had the PCs chasing after about two dozen rare books and when they found a book I would give them a one page super abridged version. Often the clue that the BBEG was not really the BB and that another NPC was the BBEG was just the subject and the author.
Hard to really explain but by the time they had all 24 books one player had actually pieced 70% of it out but was not quite sure until I revealed the keystone piece of information.
It is funny how well it works. You just need one extra bad guy to distract the players attention while the real bad guy works in the background and just comes up once in a while. I tend to give the PCs a neutral patron who sends them on missions against the EG.
Getting the players to focus on on NPC is as easy as having the EG attack or steal something the PCs were assigned to protect. You are the PCs source of information so if you give them lots of information about the EG but little information about the BBEG they will focus on the EG. By the time the BBEG becomes a real threat the players should have received enough information to understand the threat.
Often they don't perceive the true threat until I hit them with the truth via an attack, or betrayal, or a sage NPC who gives them the final pieces they need to figure it out. I cherish this moments.
It may not matter if I change the whole "destroy all" angle. In any case, she wants to do it not because she was abused or trained to think that way (which she was), but because she IS the foretold destiny made manifest.
Conceptually, she is as made up of literal evil as any fiendish lord.
There's bound to be some self delusion on her part. Not even gods are perfect in their plans. Even though things may be a net gain for her, she can still suffer set backs and massive ones. If you portray a "this is what I planned all along" image then it'd be kind of cheesy, imo.
That said, echoing Mr. Jacob's advice: metagame. Get your PC's backgrounds, memorize them, and nonstop manipulate their desires the entire time. So, when you pull the "what I planned all along" angle it'll at least hold some water.
Ever hear of the Xanatos Gambit? Or of the villain who inspired the term because he never truly lost?
You can' t possibly give her a charisma of 41, I don't see any reason to as a GM so I wouldn't.
I can't possibly?
18 base point buy
10 ability increases (mythic)
06 headband
05 levels
05 wish/tome
03 venerable age
02 Enhanced Ability (mythic)
02 race
51 TOTAL (or 39 without mythic)
I'm sure someone could get it higher if they chose, perhaps with the alchemist's Grand Cognatogen ability (another +8).
Did anyone else read the title of this thread and think that this would be a Santa Claus character?
Xanatos gambits are hard. Most end up writing Xanatos roulettes.
I think it'd have to be someone who other NPCs seem to follow almost magnetically and without much thought. As for the Satan aspect, with that much CHA I would be using Bluff and Diplomacy to ruin lives. If its the party, you create convincing lies (and illusions) that make it seem like their going against the individual or the rest of the group. Other NPCs, you create lies and (illusions) so that they kill each other. Yet through all of that deceit, have your Satan character come out looking like the innocent. Don't even have to touch a single player or NPC, you let the deceived destroy themselves. May need illusions to push the lies further (silent image and what not.)
You'll probably want to include moments of legitimate honesty. Such as keeping to a reward or not trapping a relic that seems like it would be trapped.
Just an idea though.
Ever hear of the Xanatos Gambit? Or of the villain who inspired the term because he never truly lost?
Nope. It doesn't make much logical sense, though. Introduce too many variables and the plan comes undone. The flow chart of the example plot web doesn't make sense to me. Then again, I find protagonists that stop striking down their enemy just because they spout some witty line to be utterly annoying. Defeat the main guy, take the Macguffin and control the dragon to kill the army. That scenario isn't covered at all and let's the supposed "all outcomes benefiting me" to be subverted entirely.
I've seen such things, lacking the name of the trope, work well in chess but very rarely do they when any sort of IRL flexibility comes into play. In the Rise campaign I'm playing there seems to be this sort of thing going on but we've basically broken the mod as we've prevented a vast majority of people dieing and it's only continued due to GM hand-wavery.
So, as long as the scope of the plan is very limited or the nature of things ensures a maximum number of variables, all of which can be controlled, then you could pull it off.
Now, this isn't to say your chick's history of destroying nations and worlds is bunk. It's not. It's very doable. But, it's why I mentioned some level of self delusion. Just because she thinks everything works to her gain so be it. In reality, not everything has worked out as she expected. That becomes unbelievable and kind of boring, actually. It's more unbelievable as I figure the point of the campaign this lady is behind she ultimately loses which breaks the nature of the gambit trope you linked.
Hmm, seems like there are a couple interpretations of Satan going around here, could you clarify what exactly you mean by Satan?
My impression is that he is pride, not hate or destruction. Like the famous quote from Paradise Lost: "Better to reign in Hell than serve in Heaven". It's not that he is driven to destroy things, just that he felt powerful, important, that he could be the equal of God or even something more.
I think that being motivated by a desire to display dominance could gave you a handle to grip on, naturally providing a lot of personal tension between her and your players. PCs are almost by definition powerful and of great consequence which would naturally draw her ire.
I think as gamers this is something we can relate to. When I used to play Call of Duty for example, I didn't do it to experience new things, hone my skills, or make friends. It was to dominate people, to tear up their souls and sacrifice them to the dark god that is my ego.
So maybe this is a direction you could go with your character- still an evil but maybe a slightly different one, a kind of evil many people already have an intimate relationship with.
When I try to conceptualize Satan, I think of the fallen angel who is hauntingly beautiful; who works behind the scenes to corrupt and befoul mortals, bringing them deeper and deeper into sin with their own choices and temptations--ultimately leading to the destruction of all those who follow him and his ways (whether they do so knowingly or not).