(Note: I do not have my heart set on this character, it's just a neat idea I've been playing with.)
I've been considering a Battles with a heavy social focus. (Social combat is, after all, just another battlefield.) The character motivations I've been imagining have something to do with sowing the seeds of conflict or fanning small disgreements into large battles, but I haven't yet figured out a short phrase that really gets the idea across and has reasonable limits. (I will settle for an unlimited motivation like "Generate conflict throughout Creation and beyond" only if I can't find a more defined one. Suggestions are appreciated.)
The character concept is definitely high Conviction and high Manipulation; possibly Compassion 1, probably Valor 3. This is the sort of lady who would consider Eris' golden apples to be a brilliant idea, if only they created more interesting reasons to fight, and won't hesitate to use the Socialize charm tree. Her usual mode of operation as I'm imagining it involves setting herself up as lovely arm candy for kings and gods and giving potentially tainted advice, or making herself or something else desirable but hard to acquire. (Helen of Troy would be her idea of an excellent five-year cover story or plot, depending on how much time she wanted to spend personally wreaking havoc.) She also enjoys a good fight, physical or social, but that's more of a recreational activity. Starting other people's fights is her passion.
My working name for her is Iron Razor Blossom, shortened usually to "Blossom". Whether that's genuine or ironic depends heavily on the audience. 
I'm guessing that her powers will be split between social and physical combat, but the emphasis will depend on how many other combat munchkins or social munchkins the party has.
tmack: I like this idea, though I'm a bit surprised you want to play a character as contentious as that. If you still need a Motivation, there's always the classic Chaotic Evil schtick of getting everyone together to fight it out (either literally, through social attacks and argument, the games of divinity) to find out who is the strongest and let him rule. I also like the idea of having your character be a...erm, well, bitch who hangs around the powerful and says things like, "Honey, it would make me so happy if you'd go out and conquer the Florple tribe [bats eyelashes]." Again, it's a cool idea, but I'm a bit surprised you want to play a character like that. Also, hooray for having more conviction and manipulation and low compassion in the party.
ariel: Believe it or not, I do like playing bad guys sometimes.
And I'm not actually planning on having her be that actively contentious within the party. I think it's possible to take a character like this and direct her energies almost entirely at the world without losing the flavor. (And yes, "gorgeous poisonous bitch" was part of the character summary.) tmack: It wasn't the evil part, it was the part about deliberately causing strife. I wasn't sure if you were planning to direct her energies at the world, or if there would be some splash damage into the party or the rest of Heaven. I don't think the last bit would be a bad thing, but I thought you would disagree.
ariel: Heaven is definitely within the splash damage zone, although she's likely to avoid doing *too* much there. Temptation is what it is, though.
I'm planning on avoiding most party splash damage, though, because as a player I won't enjoy that; at most, it's likely to be small hints for color, at the level of "Are you *sure* that's not worth fighting over? Aww."
tmack again: Have you read Good Omens? This sounds a lot like War/Scarlett.
ariel: She was, in fact, part of the inspiration for the character.
tmack: Cool, she's neat. The book character probably belongs in Endings, though.
AT: Very cool concept. Congratulations on coming up with something high on the "manipulative bastard" scale - I assume that was the goal. What do you see as the motivation (small M) and reasons behind her actions? Does she just start conflicts because she likes them, or because at some deep level she really thinks they're the best thing for people/Creation? The former, is mostly a sociopath, and could be a challenge to play without eventually alienating everyone around you. That being said, it could be a perfect reflection of a slightly-insane Maiden of Battles. The latter is more subject to moderation, and is someone who NPCs and PCs can understand, trust, reason and negotiate with. Or maybe there's a subtle third option. Or maybe the tension between the two is the interesting part of the character's evolution. [Also, another female character? Who are you and does Ariel know you stole her account?]
ariel: Yeah, I'm trying to break stereotype and play girls. Do you have any idea how hard this is?
I hadn't yet decided quite where she fell on the sociopath vs. weird do-gooder scale. I had been leaning towards "Starting conflicts is good, because it encourages everyone to be strong and improve themselves. Well, yes, and it's fun.", without necessarily having me or her know which one was the real motivator and which one was the side bonus. I do think she cares about the good of Creation, but probably not much about the good of individual people/gods/etc. Even if she ends up being totally cruel and heartless, I do expect her to be *reasonable*. For example, she should be pretty easy to persuade that arranging for all of the Realm dynastic families to work together in order to launch a large war against the Dead would be beneficial to everyone, even though fomenting discord between the families would cause a larger number of conflicts, probably produce more fireworks, and be easier to accomplish. BTS: One way to play somebody who causes lots of fights is this: People ought to fight for their rights, for their privileges, for what they believe in. Just by encouraging everybody to stand up and do something, you will cause lots of conflict. The conflict is then how different people with overlapping rights figure out where to put respective fists and faces. If she cares about the good of Creation but is willing to trade off individual people, why should any of them fight for anything?
AT: I could see the two combining. The fighting for individual rights is why individuals should fight, but not necessarily the broad philosophy of why you want them to fight. The reason for that is that conflict makes people stronger individually, and makes the society stronger via Darwinian selection. This was basically the philosophy of the Shadows as revealed on Z'hadum. Make the lesser beings fight as a way of improving themselves over the long term.