Truly unlikable characters are probably best left, as @faraday says, in minor roles. That is minor in terms of appearance, not necessarily authority. That grouchy, irritable Vampire prince? Perfectly acceptable as a sort-of-NPC that shows up occasionally with the only real interaction with other people being out of necessity rather than desire. They can be interesting characters, especially as folks learn their foibles and delve into backstory to try and make working with them easier.
PCs that are in constant, sustained use being universally unlikable are likely to simply be ignored in favour of others that aren't such crappy people.
ETA: This also applies to incompetence. We all know that guy who is only in the role because he knows somebody who knows somebody. We all hate that guy. If your PC is regularly inept at things they try to do, other folks just won't bother including them. But if the Colonel in charge of your unit (for instance) is inept over and over, it provides story material when characters are forced to deal with that ineptness: Overcoming their CO's lack of ability, trying to prove he's inept, or whatever.
One must also be constantly aware that when you play X kind of character, one can fall too easily into the 'oh that's just what my character would do' defence when their action actively harms the fun or story other people are trying to tell. It takes an incredibly smart person to play stupid with any degree of authenticity that doesn't detract from the experience of those around them.
ETA2: So I guess characters with such intense 'flaws' are best used as tools rather than people. They drive aspects of the story, rather than having the story be about them.