The dominant academic reading of "The Last of Us Part II" treats Ellie and Abby as morally symmetric figures caught in a cycle of revenge. This paper argues that a deontological analysis of the three foundational acts of the conflict reveals a structural asymmetry the symmetry thesis cannot accommodate. Jerry Anderson prepares a lethal procedure on an unconscious, uninformed fourteen-year-old without consent. Joel Miller, acting on the only information available to him, prevents this procedure. Abby Anderson takes revenge on Joel for that prevention. If Jerry's act violates a core moral principle and Joel's act upholds it, the retributive acts that follow are not morally equivalent. The paper examines the strongest counterargument (Ellie's presumed consent) and argues that it fails on grounds of epistemic unavailability, the distinction between presumed and informed consent, minority status, and normative coercion.