Everyone knows that an Inconsistently Heinous is capable of redemption, in contrast to Pure Evils or Near Pure Evils. But what about an instance where an Inconsistently Heinous unwillingly changes for the better?

This is what is known as a Faux Redemption, where a villain that clearly will never have any chance of redemption, feigns a redemption in some way or actually redeems but for some other reason. This includes:

• Villains that are brainwashed into heroism, either through having their vileness sucked out of them or through rewriting their original personality (Doctor Octopus' Tentacles, GOLB, Pinhead and Dracula).
• Villains who permanently ally with the heroes yet clearly detest working with them and do so for pragmatic reasons (e.g. The Architect, Preston Northwest, General Hux, and Masato Kusaka).
• Villains who simply retire from villainy for whatever reason, such as boredom, laying low, accepting their fates or deteriorating health (e.g. Jeffrey Dahmer, Bryce Walker, Tai Lung, Constance Nebbercracker, El Macho, Dabi and Zaheer).
• Villains who accomplished their goals and as a result have no reason to actively continue their villainy (e.g. Thanos, Walter White, Golden Freddy, Zim, John Kramer, and Number 6).
• On & Off villains that help the heroes, either in the middle or in the end of the story, but still hold onto their villainous ways and never atone for their actions (e.g. Viridi, Alucard, Father, Plankton, Lex Luthor, Mr. Krabs, and Bowser).
• Villains who feel heavy remorse for their actions yet refuse to take up the opportunity to actually redeem and grow as people (e.g. Tomura Shigaraki, Eren Yeager, Edward Crow, Abbot Emmanuel, Joker, Obake and Red Skull).

This is different from Redemption Rejection, describing villains who are given chances to redeem themselves but outright refuse them; however, there is still potential for overlap, as some faux redeemed Inconsistently Heinous characters have rejected redemption.