Differences that arise from different ways of perceiving and interacting with their environment are the easiest things to draw on for alien mindsets. (Harder are psychological, history-influenced sociological differences.) In this case you have an easy point of differences: they have no eyes, and sense their environment entirely via the Force.
Consider what we do with sight. We perceive:
- Brightness
- Colour
- Surface texture
- Visual patterns
- Motion (we sense the actual motion, not just changes in location)
- Environmental particulate (snow, fog, cloud, dust, opaque gasses)
- Facial expressions
- Where people are looking
- Body language
- Distances
- Position (via depth perception)
- Instruments, screens, indicators, and other technology interfaces
So the question is, what are the primary things that someone senses who senses mainly via the Force?
"Your eyes can deceive you. Don't trust them" — Kenobi
It enhanced the bearer's visual and spatial perception even in the dark or behind walls.
The Miraluka relied on this power constantly to compensate for their physical blindness. They could not perceive colors but could distinguish organics (even dead) and their alignment from the surrounding environment by their characteristic aura. Most objects, including doors and walls, appeared translucent, allowing to see through them. The Miralukas were the most skilled experts of the technique. Thanks to it, their reflexes were strengthened enormously.
So the main things that they perceive are:
- Spatial position
- Relation to the Force (auras)
- Living and dead beings
Secondary things that I might extrapolate are:
- People's intentions at the moment of action
- The true structure of objects and some of their interior workings
What does that indicate about their view of the world?
It's a very people-centric view. Their dialogue would be almost entirely about the doings, motives, and feelings of people, those being the upper-most part of their experience of reality.
In some ways there's very little hidden to them, except by distance. Most of our metaphors about unknowns relate to darkness. For them, unknowns would be expressed through metaphors about being too far away or being unnaturally cloaked from Force sense.
They can't perceive colour or brightness. They wouldn't be able to operate graphical interfaces, except maybe by exerting their Force sight to grasp the workings behind the screen and trusting the Force to guide their fingers to do the "right" thing. They might be OK with holograms, since arguably there's some "presence" or "echo of the person" to a hologram, not just light. Their culture probably seems really low-tech to an outsider since there would be no obvious, recognisable computer terminals. Their technology interfaces are likely hard to understand for others – they can see inside things, so they're more likely to put device feedback somewhere inside it, where the stuff is happening, than than bother to displaying feedback on the surface. Buttons don't even need to look like buttons, because the difference between a surface that's connected to doing something and a surface that's just immobile casing is obvious to them.
Their social interactions are probably much more like mind reading, since emotions are so obvious to the Force-sensitive. They wouldn't say, "you look angry, what's wrong?", but rather "I feel your anger, and I see that it's misdirected. You are angry with yourself," or something like. They're probably kind of intrusive with other aliens, at least until they learn aliens' sense of tact.
They can see through walls. There's no ducking behind a wall to avoid notice, there's no way for people in the same home to have privacy without deliberately "turning away" and thus acknowleging the thing you're not supposed to see. They're probably not shameful about anything at all, what with all the feelings around them being obvious, and being able to sense the bright emotional beacon of your roommates "gettin' it on". Either that, or they're especially rigid about etiquette, with lots of social standards around what is and isn't seen. As a real-world historical reference, the sociology of Japanese paper-walled houses could be informative. (I can't find a link at the moment, though…)
They can't see where others are looking. There's probably a bit extra verbiage devoted to indicating what one is attending to in normal dialogue, simply because there's no way for others to tell what your senses are focused on and infer the context of words from that.
They can probably sense things that are invisible to light-seeing people. Things like invisible poisonous gas are probably spatially evident just like everything else. Ditto, they'd be able to tell when a space is in vacuum or has air in it. Maybe they'd even be able to sense air pressure.
They can't see a long way, unless they're very strong. (Think, "I haven't sensed that presence in a very long time.") Even then, they can't see forever. Their senses depend on how far they can extend from themselves, while light-seeing beings depend on how strong the light is. So, they can't see stars, except maybe as a very distant huge mass of existence way out there. A nice view is lost on them.
What does art look like when you don't look at art? Their plays are probably incredibly sophisticated, and lost on anyone who can't sense emotions. They probably sing. They're probably very good – potentially – at controlling their emotions, since it's an effective communication medium. They're probably as good at it as we are with body language – that is, most humans suck at "speaking" body language deliberately except for the most broad statements (like, "I don't like you"), while some few people can become very adept at controlling what their body language expresses.
Build some stock phrases or metaphors out of this. Have in mind how they'd talk about unexpected events, like an assassin intent on a killing sneaking into a dark apartment – they're going to perceive that very differently than their light-dependent companions. Build up a few scenarios in your mind that highlight these differences in worldview, and which are likely sorts of things to happen in a roleplaying game, and you'll have a lot of pieces from which to improvise during play.
Is she dissatisfied?
Is she upset by this situation? Does she desire greater involvement, or would enjoy more if there were something different about the game? Or does she like her low level of involvement?
There is no way we can answer these questions. They are questions for her. Talk to her, ask her straight out. She may be just fine with things the way they are; her level of involvement may be all she wants. She may prefer to be there for the camaraderie and social interaction, to be a part of the group, more than for the game itself. Or, there may be very different things she wants from the game, which she doesn’t know how to bring up or is too shy/polite to do so. Those are important things to know.
Here, I strongly recommend the Same Page Tool. It’s a great way for groups to get, ahem, on the same page. It will help frame the question of what she wants and what the game is actually providing and how those things differ.
If she’s comfortable: does it negatively affect anyone else?
If she doesn’t want more involvement, is that acceptable to the group? Or does the character who is apparently silent and uninvolved most of the time occasionally piping up cause breaks in immersion?
Again, questions for you and your group. I, myself, for whatever reason just did not get very involved in a game recently. As a group, we decided it was OK for the character to “check out” most of the time, with me only adding in quirky one-liners and tossing out the occasional spell in combat. It fit the character, and the group was OK with it.
In a different game with a different group and as a different character, I may not have gotten away with that. I most likely would have dropped out graciously, since I just wasn’t getting into the game. She may as well, or she may agree to some compromise, to try harder to get involved.
If she does want more, can you reach a compromise that will give her more opportunity to engage?
If there are things she wants from the game that she’s not getting, can you offer more of them without disrupting the game? Or are they incompatible with the game that you and the rest of the group want to play?
Once again, questions for you and your group. Be upfront and honest here; no one wants to waste time on a game that is frustratingly not providing the experience you want, and it won’t improve your game. But if possible, assuming she is a friend/you enjoy her presence in the game, compromise is a good thing. It’s entirely possible that what she wants is easy enough to provide, or a good idea in any case, or something the rest of your wants as well unbeknownst to you.
Best Answer
I have actually played a character like this.
Admittedly, this character wasn't an AI or owned by another character, but he was accustomed to being a servant/slave, and he carried that mentality after his master's death. As a result, he didn't really have any goals of his own beyond assisting those around him in whatever endeavors they pursued.
Subservient
This character was always offering aid and assistance to other party members, and to NPCs he particularly valued. Mind you, this wasn't out of the kindness of his heart - he just didn't really know any other way to operate, so he would always look for someone to serve. If there was a job that needed done, especially if it was undesirable to another character, my character did it. He didn't really have his own set of morals, so his morals and goals tended to reflect those of whoever he was assisting at the moment (a really fun way to play a true neutral character btw). And he always worked to further the goals and status of the other PCs.
Unobtrusive
I made sure to keep this character polite to everyone at all times - after all, it wouldn't do for the service to insult the guest, and it would be the greatest dishonor for one to insult his master. This also had the benefit of giving the NPCs a generally favorable impression without making them take particular notice of him - which became very important when our campaign very suddenly went all cloak and dagger.
Also, I made sure to keep saying things like "I only wish to serve" and the like, and to lead any disagreement with a passive "might I suggest..." or similar. This added some personality while also keeping this character from stealing the spotlight from other players.
Yet not passive
One trick to being subservient, yet active, is to actively anticipate the needs and wants of other characters. When my character was around other PCs, he largely spent his time suggesting beneficial courses of action, or offering to assist them with tasks that were either difficult or tedious (like bookkeeping for a shop that one PC was running). When on his own, this character spent most of his time learning the customs and layout of the local area while also building connections that he could use to aid his party.
As a result, if the party needed something done, my character always had a useful contact, or knew of a secret passage, or had special knowledge of an incoming shipment, and so on. This never intruded on what the other players were doing, but my DM did give me plenty of spotlight time to build these connections, and every instance where I had a useful connection or special knowledge came from a scene that I had actually played through and acted out.
Of course, it also helped that my party was very much CHAOTIC and came up with some really wacky plans - many of which were, uh, pretty bad and probably doomed to fail. So, without altering the goal, I would suggest a (typically) more subtle approach and a more structured plan to basically ensure that nobody died while we - ahem - attempted to assassinate a king for example (we weren't even suspects after the fact). In other words, I became the planner and strategist, whilst others actually made the decisions.
This active role did actually lead to quite a few instances of getting the spotlight, as this character managed to be both assertive and subservient at the same time. He definitely got his moments to shine, and never by taking the spotlight from someone else.
Give your character some quirks
Apart from everything I've said here, I gave the character a few personality traits to make him stand out. He was always practicing at something - whether that be magic, cooking, law, engineering, or anything else that seems useful, he was throwing most of his attention into something. At the same time, I gave this character a habit of getting really focused on whatever he was working on, to the point that he would fail to notice details outside of that thing.
His obsessive nature led to some really fun interactions with the other PCs, and is now one of the thing other players tend to remember most about him when we talk about that campaign (it ended a couple years ago).
You don't have to pick those personality traits, but I would suggest giving your character something quirky and unique, but otherwise mild and largely irrelevant to the games' mechanics. If you can make these quirks endearing in some way, other players will remember this character.
TLDR: Actively serve the party
Don't grab the spotlight. Don't make the decisions. But also make sure your advice is heard. Don't make demands, just suggestions. Follow orders, but don't wait around to be told what to do. Actively make those connections and attain useful knowledge. Do that, and you'll get plenty of chances to shine. And give your character some kind of personality quirk to make them memorable.