The line in question is, essentially, Calia speaking up about how the war is over and then Tyrande shaming her about the harm “her kind” has done. Calia, who was not even Forsaken during the events of BFA and arguably still isn’t, who was sheltering with the Alliance until 8.3, and isn’t really entirely Horde, either.
I get characters with prejudice are a thing, but generally, when you write prejudice, particularly with someone who is angry and righteous, you’re going to want to show how their world view has twisted. If it isn’t petty, meaningless hate then it needs a sort of logic to it. If they want to write that Tyrande has a hatred and prejudice against undead now, that’s fair, but that’s not really what’s in that line, right? It doesn’t seem like they committed to that?
If Tyrande were to say something to the effect of, “The Horde shelters undead, clearly something is broken in undead that makes them murderous,” but y’know, more angry, that would be an interesting development! She certainly has a pile of evidence that undead in this setting seem to get real murderous real fast. It also means she doesn’t trust her former sisters who are now Forsaken kaldorei, which is also a bit of a grey area given history and promises interesting conflict between her and other kaldorei who might be more sympathetic.
But…does she believe that? Her line was so vague and so nonsensical, and pointed to the least sensible person it could have possibly been pointed to, that I almost don’t know what information to take from it. Was it just a throwaway “we need Tyrande to sound angry” line that we aren’t supposed to read into?
Why is that line so clipped? What was the thought that went into writing it?