All deontological moral theories are committed to agent-centered constraints. In this paper I argue that agent-centered constraints, as standardly formulated, are ambiguous and have three distinct interpretations. Thus, any deontologist has to clarify which of these three interpretations her theory endorses. However, I argue that once we shift through the various options we discover a trilemma for deontology. The deontologist must either accept that: (i) deontological constraints are maximising-state rules, or (ii) deontological constraints give no moral advice in cases where commonsense morality expects moral advice, or (iii) deontology adopts a counterintuitive decision procedure as a contrary-to-duty obligation. I argue that each of these options is a tough bullet to bite.