Well my problem specifically centers around the party dynamics of the ensemble crew of characters around. And while I'm aware she's gonna be reserved and not go full psycho due to being at risk from being collectively smacked by the GMs and party. It raises the question question of why make such a character with all this over the top stuff and extreme stuff in it. The character is setting my Gm senses off with red flags with all these trait, associated with one of those disruptive player types and isn't being helped with things like "how she'd kill you if she wasn't lazy" or the original idea which thankfully was cut of her gassing a fucking orphanage. 

Anyway I believe the awesome game of 7th Sea has some relevant wisdom on this. And I'd like to repeat while the type of character being described is maybe a bit more escalated than this character as well as the genre it's referencing not necessarily fitting with this game, but it still points in the direction I'm talking about

[hider= The ensemble]
Some people, when they start an RPG, come up with a Hero like this:
He's the best kind of killer and the kind of killing he does isn't
pretty. He's a bad man who lives by his own rules and those who
cross him come away with one fewer extremity. Don't walk in his
shadow, because doom and gloom follow him wherever he goes.
He doesn't play well with others, because he's a lone wolf, a
shadow-browed killer who won't get close to anybody because
getting close means losing and he ain't gonna lose ever again.

Who wants to party with this guy? When we're talking about 7th Sea stories, we're talking about "ensemble stories." Ensemble stories revolve around a group rather than just one individual. While D'Artagnan may be the viewpoint character of The Three Musketeers, the story is about a team of men and their mission to save the King of France. Lord Percy may indeed be the Scarlet Pimpernel, but his league of agents, informers and friends make the story work. In the end, even Captain Blood must recognize that his own personal agenda is not as important as the lives of the men who followed him for so many years.
 
When you first sit down and think of the kind of Hero you want to play, keep all of that in mind. You are going to be a part of a group, and you have to find your own niche within that group. That doesn't mean the group has to swallow your style (after all, everyone has his own favorite musketeer), but your style should complement the group you join. If your group looks like it's going to be Sailing in search of the hidden Seventh Sea, then you should make a Hero who's interested in such a quest. On the other hand, sometimes contradictory Heroes make the perfect complement to a group. 

That same nautical search could do well with a Church scholar who sneers at the prospect of a "lost sea" and is along for the ride to make sure somebody on the boat has his perspective straight. Of course, the scholar isn't going to sabotage any evidence the party might stumble on; that would be obfuscating the Creator's Truth, something no honest scholar would never do. "But what if my Hero isn't honest?" you ask. "What if I want to play someone who wants to sabotage the party's goal?"

Ask yourself this: Would you want to play with a character in the party who was putting your Hero at risk? If a Hero acts against the best interests of the group, how would that group rationally respond? Would you trust that Hero after you found out he was doing less than honorable things, or would you just throw him over the side and let the mermaids have him? In a nutshell, playing a Hero who acts against the rest of the party asks the other players to accommodate your character concept by compromising their own. That's having fun at everyone else's expense, and it's not the kind of fun we're looking for.
[/hider]