Joel is dead on The Last of Us. Abby spent five long years seeking revenge for the murder of her father and the other Fireflies in Salt Lake City. Now Ellie wants to kill Abby for the same reason. Ellie hoped her fellow denizens in Wyoming would support her quest for vengeance, but not everyone in the beleaguered town agreed. Neither did the commune’s council. It overwhelmingly voted down her proposal after an emotional debate.
Were they right to reject Ellie’s request to seek revenge for Joel’s murder? Or is retribution not just morally justified but the only way for Jackson to keep itself safe? An answer wasn’t provided by either side on The Last of Us season two, episode three. The answer came from seeing Ellie herself, who is now as determined as Abby was to get vengeance. This change in her is itself the proof the council is right. But that doesn’t mean we wouldn’t do the exact same thing as Ellie.
The arguments against the revenge proposal were pragmatic, wise, and ethical. Wyoming, Jackson is still grieving. It’s still suffering from the infected attack, and its people are not ready for more fighting. The town itself isn’t read, either. It’s more vulnerable than ever. As Rachel said, many of the town’s strongest fighters and builders are dead. Its walls, which couldn’t hold before, aren’t even fully rebuilt yet. The commune is simply too weak to risk 16 of its best warriors for a mission none might return from. If nothing else, they need those people to remain there where they can guard against possible raiders.
Even if the town were back at full strength, though, what makes a place like Jackson, Wyoming special—unlike so many of the other places and groups we’ve seen on The Last of Us—is its peoples’ refusal to lose its sense of civilization. The commune is a society of hope and acceptance. It’s a place where mankind is continuing to thrive amid a wasteland of monsters. And mercy is a sign of humanity. To forgive those who have wronged us, as Carlisle argued, even if they have neither asked for nor deserve it, separates us from the animals.
Mercy and forgiveness are also, if nothing else, logical, pragmatic, and wise. As Confucius said, “Before you embark on a journey of revenge, dig two graves,” because you’re just as likely to be a victim of your own vengeance as any of your enemies.
Ellie didn’t make a case for vengeance on The Last of Us season two, episode three, though. She took Jesse’s advice, and instead of appealing to anger, she made the case for justice. Gail might have known Ellie was full of shit, but Ellie was still compelling and reasoned. Only the people of Jackson can protect the people of Jackson. And in a world where everyone and everything is trying kill them, they must rely on one another to answer the call when evil comes to their door. Justice is inherently good, and in a world without courts, the only justice any of them will ever get is the justice they seek.
Before Ellie pleaded her case, Seth made the argument she really wanted to. It was the argument that many of us wanted to hear, the one we would have liked to make ourselves. Seth is pissed and wants vengeance for the sake of vengeance. On The Last of Us season two, Seth calls for revenge. Joel was one of them, and someone came and killed him. There’s only one way acceptable response to such a heinous act, and it’s not fear, mercy, or victimhood. It’s retribution. Even amid his anger, though, Seth made a legitimately fair point on The Last of Us season two’s third episode. If word gets around that Jackson will let the murder of a citizen go unanswered, they might take that as a sign Jackson is vulnerable. One single unanswered killing could lead to all of them dead.
Seth and Ellie made cogent points, some logical, some emotional, but the side of Rachel and Carlisle easily won out when it came time to vote—as it should have. It doesn’t matter how much Joel meant to the town. It doesn’t matter how much they might personally want vengeance. Even if you think an eye-for-an-eye is a morally acceptable way for a society to get justice, in this specific case, it’s a shortsighted, dangerous idea. Jackson is a community of people for all people. It simply cannot risk the lives of 16 people for any reason that isn’t directly related to the town’s own safety. Going to Seattle to hopefully find Abby has nothing to do with safety. It’s inherently unsafe.
The council’s vote is why governments (should) exist. We elect representatives to make hard decisions based not on emotion but reason. Leaders are elected to do the right thing when it’s not easy or clear. They’re supposed to make correct decisions, especially the kind that don’t feel good. There was simply no justification for approving Ellie’s proposal, even if many of the council probably wanted to personally vote yes. They acted responsibly.
We know that. We might hate it, but we know that vote was correct on The Last of Us. And if we were Ellie and had her skills, we would now be doing the same thing regardless of what the council said. We would be doing it for the same exact reason Abby spent five years hunting down Joel. When the person you love most in the world is brutally murdered, logic is no match for emotion. Heartbreak will always be stronger than reason. Spilt blood runs deeper than community ties.
But the consequence of Abby’s quest is a sign of what very well might await Ellie. Joel’s murder is now leading to a cycle of violence, and we know how Ellie’s quest for vengeance might end. Even if she finds Abby and kills her, Ellie’s search for revenge might end with her buried next to Joel.
Mikey Walsh is a staff writer at Nerdist. He would have voted “no” but then did exactly what Seth did. You can follow him on Bluesky at @burgermike. And also anywhere someone is ranking the Targaryen kings.