The issue of showing a tyrant's hidden desire for redemption without spoiling the story's main beats is a classic tightrope walk. From what I've seen, the most successful narratives don't make it a single scene; it's a pattern of small, often contradictory choices. In 'The Poppy War' for instance, the interactions with a specific character reveal a deep, unspoken regret that feels more like a burden than a desire for praise. It's never stated aloud, but the way the narrative frames their isolation speaks volumes. These moments are usually quieter, wedged between larger acts of cruelty, which makes them easy to miss if you're just reading for plot. The character might preserve something meaningless to everyone else, or show a flash of exhaustion after a brutal decision. I think the key is that the 'wanting to be good' is almost subconscious, even to them, so the scenes feel fragile and easily dismissed by other characters, which protects the later reveal. You're left with a nagging feeling something's off, but the book hasn't tipped its hand yet.
A trick I've noticed is the use of point-of-view. If we're in the tyrant's head, we might get their internal justification, which often contains seeds of a twisted moral code. They might believe their horrific act is a necessary sacrifice for a 'greater good' they've defined, and the conviction in that belief can be the first clue. When the perspective is from an outsider, look for moments where the tyrant's violence seems performative or oddly targeted, sparing someone for no logical reason. The story 'Vicious' plays with this brilliantly—actions that look like pure malice from one angle have a completely different texture when you finally get the full context. The spoiler isn't ruined because, in the moment, you likely read those scenes as signs of cunning or inconsistency, not latent goodness.