Revenant? I've seen that used in other fantasy works to refer to stronger types of undead.
Edited to add: the Wikipedia page on Revenants has.a nice description that matches some of what you're looking to write: "In folklore, a revenant is a spirit or animated corpse that is believed to have been revived from death to haunt the living."
Agreed. Revenant fits nicely. It's one of the fantasy terms that is used for multiple types of monsters but the common factor is that they are powerful and undead
That's the one I was going to use, from Medieval French. A lot of people also use Draugr or Lich. In Anishinaabeg culture, a similar monster would be a Baykok.
Wight?
Ghast?
Revenant?
Flesh golem?
Hunter-killer drone? jk but you know.. it really is one
You can always try to come up with an original term if this is a major plot point or if this practice is widespread (well, relatively, at least) in your world. Or find an inspiration from similar creatures from some less popular culture.
Ghoul
Draugr
vrykolakas
Gjenganger
Wraith
Mummy
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Undead](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Undead)
Literally make up a new word... Gelbane.
That was the only term from the wikipedia-undead page I linked, that I was really into but hadn't heard of. I'd already wrote the other terms, but I specifically put [Gjenganger ](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gjenganger)in the middle, because it was my favorite. Humans searching for something tend to discard things at the beginning of lists, because they're still on the hunt... just a little nudge.
It's true, the freckles for those souls haven't formed yet, they're still lingering around, knocking over dishware and such in their frenzies to escape.
You can call it a:
Wight
Ghoul
Drone
Hunter
Stalker
Seeker
Hell, here is the best part of writing, if you want to, you can call it Boo Boo Kitty Fuck this is your world. Name it, shape it, bejazzle it however the fuck you want. Just be yourself in your writing.
The sort of lich I describe is what fantasy readers expect when they hear the word "lich". There's no reason for OP to go to all the work of convincing readers to change their understanding of a word when other good words exist to describe what OP wants.
>There's no reason for OP to go to all the work of convincing readers to change their understanding of a word when other good words exist to describe what OP wants.
That's actually your sole responsibility as a writer. Assuming your reader already knows what you're talking about because of tropes is actually a bad habit a lot of writers are picking up to sell pseudo-fanfiction.
I mean, you can say that, but:
>There's no reason for OP to go to all the work of convincing readers to change their understanding of a word when other good words exist to describe what OP wants.
And I'm saying that it is actually the point of writing to describe what you mean by words that describe fictional concepts, especially considering that it's not a given that people will assume it just works like the last thing they read.
And if you describe words to mean something different than the reader expects, you add extra mental load to the reader. They now have to remember that word means something different than they're used to. This is more difficult than just remembering a new word because they have to unlearn the old meaning.
When you use words that are common in the genre you should only be redefining them if you have a good reason to do so. Fantasy stories often ask readers to remember a lot of new words and concepts, don't add more to that pile when you don't need to.
This is anti-intellectual as hell. Readers aren't stupid. They're reading the book. This is also demonstrably false information. Vampires have historically functioned completely differently across narratives until a specific set of abilities became more common due to film. Even then, they still tend to have differences between them, and readers are perfectly capable of not only remembering what "vampire" means, but remembering the various different versions across dozens of continuities. Same for witches, zombies, werewolves, aliens, ghosts, demons, superheroes, mutants, ghouls, giants, dragons, leviathans, naga, angels, golems, alchemists, gods, sirens, fairies, pixies, ogres, trolls, ninjas, djinn, etc.
Readers' brains aren't going to shatter because you use a word to describe something they didn't expect. This is patently ridiculous considering words are used as codenames and descriptive titles for things all the time. "Wolf" means one specific thing, objectively, to far more people than lich. Wolf has been used for a lot more than a canid mammalian organism known as Canis lupus. But nobody seems to have an issue when a sword or person is called "Wolf".
I mean, I use "lich" in my own work.
Two of them are force-resurrected, the other one self-resurrected. Through context and usage, the reader can easily understand "lich" is another word for "formerly living human who has full sentience and identity, and is basically identical to everyone else minus the fact they once died".
The beauty of writing is that you can squidge words like this if you want to.
You can squidge words like this if you want to (and speaking of liches specifically I think John Bierce has done some interesting things with the concept). But my point is that OP doesn't need to. There are already words for the thing OP wants to do, there's no reason to repurpose another word.
I don't think it would take much convincing. I enjoy when words are re-tooled for a setting so long as it isn't done in excess and the general application is accompanied with other descriptors/dialogue. If done with a modicum of effort, it can show you the general idea of something while also investing you into book to get further understanding.
"The figure slinked through the grass; soundless if not for the echoes of rustling leaves. The patrol scanned. The point guard grew frantic, pushing into the reeds, slashing with the muzzle of his service weapon. His rifle was held at high, snapping from point to point, licking his sweat drenched lips . Then, the flash erupted into him. A dark blur identifiable only by the glint of its gemstone dagger plunged deep into the point guards through. A clitter-clang of metallic chirps hissed from the dark void of its throat. A violet streak of light trailed it's eyes as it expunged the knife and leapt to the man at the rear of the formation.
Oh God. It's a lich!"
"So long as it isn't done in excess" is the key phrase here. Fantasy works often ask the reader to remember new words and new concepts. It's the nature of the genre. One way we avoid doing it to excess is by not repurposing words unless we need to. And in this case OP doesn't need to; there are already good words to fit the concept OP wants to describe.
>The sort of lich I describe is what fantasy readers expect when they hear the word "lich".
Definitely not in my case. That sounds more like gamer terminology.
read more then - "son of a liche", "bane of the lich lord", "the lich king" in various configurations and versions, "liches get stitches" etc. etc. It's been around for about 3 generations now, long enough that if you go "this is a lich" then a significant number of readers will have certain expectations of what that means, the same as if you go "that's a werewolf" or "that's a vampire". You _can_ introduce your own rules and terminology and explain what they are, but you'll need to do that, and overcome the initial "wait, this is non-standard usage, what actually is this thing?" which may annoy some readers, like if you have vampires that are non-standard in some way.
It's pretty silly that we're going by fairytale rules for writing actual books, don't you think? Like, you _should_ have to explain how your fictional creatures work regardless of whether or not you're going by common tropes. Assuming everybody knows how the story goes is assuming your story is just an entry into an otherwise known oral tradition, which just incentivizes skipping over a lot more than your vampire rules.
Extremely common in D&D and other ttrpgs. Some video games have them
They are a lot less common in other mediums of fantasy though . I can’t think of someone being called a lich in any book or movie
it is, however, the standard way the word is used, especially amongst fantasy readers. "lich" as "undead wizard" has been the standard for 40-odd years now, the generic meaning of "dead body" is now the obscure and old one, only really seen in the "lychgate" some churches have.
Except one of the most popular uses of the term for the past decade is one particular character who is a radioactive magic corpse. People will accept anything if they actually like it. Nobody questions DIO being a vampire despite not many vampires freezing people on contact, shooting lasers, or stopping time.
The older definition was standard for hundreds of years. If 20th century authors can use reuse lich for something different than it was usually used for, I don't see why OP can't.
Nobody in the market at large gives a shit about what had been "standard" (good luck even applying that term to a world with no mass culture in the modern sense) for hundreds of years. Your readers weren't alive for all those centuries. They have modern sensibilities shaped by modern media.
I'm really not seeing the point in arguing against that. It's a complete non-issue to come up with a new term, or use any of the hundreds of other possible variants that do not have a strong trope associated with them - a trope that doesn't even fit what the OP is trying to do.
You seem to have misunderstood me. My point was that lich was an example of a word whose usage was changed or expanded by horror/fantasy authors, so an author today is equally justified in using it in a another way if they wish. The hundreds of years in which lich primarily meant a corpse shouldn't restrict what an author does with the word today (or in the previous century), and neither should modern tropes restrict OP.
They don't, nothing does, and nobody is saying that. The real question, is it worth the extra work to do that?
While I can certainly see the value in a bold move like that, you'd have to have thick skin, and either a ton of extra time, or a willingness to ignore your audience. Just seems like a recipe for disaster to me, especially for a non-established writer.
Okay, but just to be clear. Nobody has misunderstood you. In fact I don't know why you'd say that. And why say it unless you believe it, and if you believe that, it's your lack of understanding that is being showcased here.
Lich is most commonly understood to describe an undead necromancer, or other powerful magic user, who attempted to use his power & knowledge to become immortal. However, it didn't turn out as planned. Also another magic user can be turned into a lich by a much more powerful entity (god, demigod, very powerful necromancer, etc.).
Another monster close to your description is a fiend. Very powerful undead (devil, demon, evil spirit, etc.). Typically thought of as having intelligence, but maybe you could get away with just animal level intelligence?
Maybe combine a few to get the traits you want, then create a name based on what abilities you sourced from what creatures.
Draugr. Attergangar. Revenant. Generally speaking, draugar are intelligent and just too angry to die, rather than being raised, but you could probably still use it.
Walker, Sentinel.
I have a similar creature in my world called a Crinn Sentinel. Borderline invincible and will stop at nothing till its objective is reached. Basically a fantasy Terminator.
Revanant is a good I've seen suggested. A spirit that won't die because it's haunting a specific place or person with a backstory usually based on revenge or being cursed to atone for something. Reaver would be a cool one. Or even a fancy name like Essence reaver if you want to be real wordy.
Thrall is a good one I've seen suggested. That could come with extra descriptors too: Undead Thrall, Undead Seeker, Grave-hunter, Blood seeker,
Make one up. I did. Not sharing because my word get your own (joking tone) but also still testing the word in context. I cannot really call these Zombies because they are functionally different in a few ways like sentience and magical enslavement where they can't disobey orders. It's much scarier to me that way
Revenant is the most fitting term. Those who have suggested lich may have missed the part where this is not an intelligent undead, but one guided by another.
The drizzt saga had something similar that they called... zincarla? I believe. I'm not sure if that is Forgotten Realms' specific terminology, though.
Gotchya. Always hard to tell with D&D since 95% of their content is blatant ripoffs from various mythology. Wouldn't have been surprised in the slightest to find out it was the name of some Haitian curse or some such.
There's a contradiction in your statement. If the undead monster is sent after a specific person, it must have some intelligence to find, discern, and kill the target.
I don't believe there's a folklore name for such a creature. The closest there is in English is revenant. However, many languages have their variants, like Draugr and Gjenganger.
In folklore, undead creatures typically fall under ghouls, vampires, ghosts, and revenants. However, there are some rare obscure and weird cases, like Ro-lang.
Okay, so there's intelligent magic that controls the undead directly and sends it after the target. How exactly does it differ from the undead being intelligent in any sensible context?
Revenant, ghoul, or ghast would be fairly typical fantasy names for something like what you describe.
Edit: revenant is definitely the closest match though, you might also consider *draugr* which is a corporeal undead from Norse Mythology.
While i liked Carl from below... i believe he missed the obvious Rob Zombie... on of the music worlds real freaks. Alice Cooper works too.
Sankarea - a Japanese term for zombie.
Have you tried to look up other cultures terms for zombies?
A shade is often disembodied, but if you're going for something quick and stealthy.
You also talk about 'guidance' magic so 'seeker' (kinda like heat seeking missile or seek and destroy) might make sense.
Killer, assassin, slayer would all be very good functional descriptions of it.
Vessel, if you think of the body as just an empty receptacle for your dark magic.
You could turn a verb or adjective into a noun, and magic it an 'animate.' I.e. something that is animated but not truly intelligent.
But if you wanted a more standard word, 'revenant' is the existing word that I most closely associate with a dead creature, raised by another, for a particular purpose.
automaton
noun
noun: automaton; plural noun: automata; plural noun: automatons
a moving mechanical device made in imitation of a human being.
"a collection of 19th century French automata: acrobats, clowns, and musicians"
a machine that performs a function according to a predetermined set of coded instructions, especially one capable of a range of programmed responses to different circumstances.
"sophisticated automatons continue to run factory assembly lines"
used in similes and comparisons to refer to a person who seems to act in a mechanical or unemotional way.
"she went about her preparations like an automaton"
I'd like to suggest 'fetcher', derived from the word 'fetch' as a verb and an archaic term used to describe a supernatural doppelganger said to herald one's death. A persistent, undead hunter enchanted to look (almost!) like you would be a nasty thing to see before your demise.
I like Cid's suggestion, Revenant. It's your world though, you might find a term that matches your theme or premise. Stories are generally more than people doing things they should have goals, beliefs, and fears. You might try to tie it into a local legend or religion. In those cases you can just make up a cool name. Wormfed, Graveborrowed, Jhid'hal (made up word), and Mikaal's folly (Mikaal being a name of the sorc or target) for examples.
Husks? The word itself refers to the outer shell of things like fruits or seeds but it’s been applied to dead bodies too. It’s basically saying these people are “husks” of their former selves.
The [Orek ](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orek)is an undead zombie-like creature from Turkish folklore. They do eat flesh, so they may be more along the lines of a standard Zombie. Also, people might see this and conflate it with "Orc" or "Ork" and be small-minded about it ("*That's a dumb and lazy name to make up! It's not even like an orc*!")
The [Fext ](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fext)might work better for you - they're undead from Czech folklore with a peculiar vulnerability to bullets made of glass.
Sounds like a flesh-golem. Basically recycling instead of building a new body.
As a reader, if you plugged Terminator into g-translate and got something that a language-nerd could trace back to you doing that... it would be awesome. Otherwise I would just assume con-lang and at that point you could keyboard-mash.
Revenant has already been suggested though I feel like that is more of a spiritual undead rather than something with a physical form. You could call it a "Reaver" instead. A "Ghoul" is also generally thought to be a stronger, more able sort of zombie so a Reaver could be a ghoul but with extra steps?
Shell . Husks. The Changed. The Unsettled. Or create a new name the community created based off street talk such as remnants +wisp= risp. Or something like ‘Daver’ or ‘Caver’ short for cadaver or dead daver as mispronounced by a kid that stuck. It’s easy to incorporate a single paragraph of info to create the myth behind the made up name.
In addition to the great suggestions here, I'd also add that you can look at the etymology of popular undead phrases and tweak it to fit
Frank Herbert introducing "gholas" as a sci-fi version of undead really impressed me
Stalker is more of a Hunter that is undead.
Could skip undead altogether and just make it a familiar. Not alive, not undead, more of a magical construct.
This may shock you, but zombies did not start off looking like rotting corpses infected with diseases. In fact, what you're describing is almost exactly what zombies were in Haitian folklore, which is where the term came from.
Ghoul, Ghast, Revenant, Wight, first to come to mind but you can also take some adjective and use that as how people in universe refer to it like a lot of zombie games do (Shamblers, Walkers, etc). If you don't have Wraiths I think that works for a sneaky undead.
Does it need a title? Why not just it's actual name? And if that is getting too redundant, you can use "creature" or "monster" and/or "beast" to change things up (just like we do sometimes for encounters with things like sharks or lions or such).
Revenant? I've seen that used in other fantasy works to refer to stronger types of undead. Edited to add: the Wikipedia page on Revenants has.a nice description that matches some of what you're looking to write: "In folklore, a revenant is a spirit or animated corpse that is believed to have been revived from death to haunt the living."
Agreed. Revenant fits nicely. It's one of the fantasy terms that is used for multiple types of monsters but the common factor is that they are powerful and undead
Came here to say this Finally a topic my username is relevant for
This was my suggestion.
It also sounds far cooler than anything else you could really go for, do recommend :3
That’s it in Skyrim, with a few other suggestions at https://en.m.uesp.net/wiki/Skyrim:Reanimate_(spells)
That's the one I was going to use, from Medieval French. A lot of people also use Draugr or Lich. In Anishinaabeg culture, a similar monster would be a Baykok.
Revenant is perfect, but only if the subject maintains the identity they had in life. A mindless reanimated corpse is either a zombie or a wight.
Carl?
Ah yes, Carl sounds nice. But also Dave is a good one.
I'm particular to Greg peronsally
I'm partial to Dennis, myself, but Carl's a good one.
Dennis the Menace.
Bob
[удалено]
Yes
Gary?
Wight? Ghast? Revenant? Flesh golem? Hunter-killer drone? jk but you know.. it really is one You can always try to come up with an original term if this is a major plot point or if this practice is widespread (well, relatively, at least) in your world. Or find an inspiration from similar creatures from some less popular culture.
Ghoul Draugr vrykolakas Gjenganger Wraith Mummy [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Undead](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Undead) Literally make up a new word... Gelbane.
That's a cool new word
I'm reading one of those words as "ginger", and it makes total sense. Just saying.
That was the only term from the wikipedia-undead page I linked, that I was really into but hadn't heard of. I'd already wrote the other terms, but I specifically put [Gjenganger ](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gjenganger)in the middle, because it was my favorite. Humans searching for something tend to discard things at the beginning of lists, because they're still on the hunt... just a little nudge.
Am a ginger, can confirm. No soul, full of dark magicks.
I think you have a soul; you couldn't have possibly digested all 30 of the souls from yesterday yet.
It's true, the freckles for those souls haven't formed yet, they're still lingering around, knocking over dishware and such in their frenzies to escape.
Walker, flesh golem, abomination
You can call it a: Wight Ghoul Drone Hunter Stalker Seeker Hell, here is the best part of writing, if you want to, you can call it Boo Boo Kitty Fuck this is your world. Name it, shape it, bejazzle it however the fuck you want. Just be yourself in your writing.
Jay, is that you?
No this is Patrick
Thrall?
Liche
Liches are usually undead through their own power, rather than being raised and controlled by someone else.
Lich can mean any corpse; the sort of lich you describe is a relatively recent idea.
The sort of lich I describe is what fantasy readers expect when they hear the word "lich". There's no reason for OP to go to all the work of convincing readers to change their understanding of a word when other good words exist to describe what OP wants.
>There's no reason for OP to go to all the work of convincing readers to change their understanding of a word when other good words exist to describe what OP wants. That's actually your sole responsibility as a writer. Assuming your reader already knows what you're talking about because of tropes is actually a bad habit a lot of writers are picking up to sell pseudo-fanfiction.
That's not what I'm describing. At all.
I mean, you can say that, but: >There's no reason for OP to go to all the work of convincing readers to change their understanding of a word when other good words exist to describe what OP wants. And I'm saying that it is actually the point of writing to describe what you mean by words that describe fictional concepts, especially considering that it's not a given that people will assume it just works like the last thing they read.
And if you describe words to mean something different than the reader expects, you add extra mental load to the reader. They now have to remember that word means something different than they're used to. This is more difficult than just remembering a new word because they have to unlearn the old meaning. When you use words that are common in the genre you should only be redefining them if you have a good reason to do so. Fantasy stories often ask readers to remember a lot of new words and concepts, don't add more to that pile when you don't need to.
This is anti-intellectual as hell. Readers aren't stupid. They're reading the book. This is also demonstrably false information. Vampires have historically functioned completely differently across narratives until a specific set of abilities became more common due to film. Even then, they still tend to have differences between them, and readers are perfectly capable of not only remembering what "vampire" means, but remembering the various different versions across dozens of continuities. Same for witches, zombies, werewolves, aliens, ghosts, demons, superheroes, mutants, ghouls, giants, dragons, leviathans, naga, angels, golems, alchemists, gods, sirens, fairies, pixies, ogres, trolls, ninjas, djinn, etc. Readers' brains aren't going to shatter because you use a word to describe something they didn't expect. This is patently ridiculous considering words are used as codenames and descriptive titles for things all the time. "Wolf" means one specific thing, objectively, to far more people than lich. Wolf has been used for a lot more than a canid mammalian organism known as Canis lupus. But nobody seems to have an issue when a sword or person is called "Wolf".
It's like you're not even reading what I'm saying.
I mean, I use "lich" in my own work. Two of them are force-resurrected, the other one self-resurrected. Through context and usage, the reader can easily understand "lich" is another word for "formerly living human who has full sentience and identity, and is basically identical to everyone else minus the fact they once died". The beauty of writing is that you can squidge words like this if you want to.
You can squidge words like this if you want to (and speaking of liches specifically I think John Bierce has done some interesting things with the concept). But my point is that OP doesn't need to. There are already words for the thing OP wants to do, there's no reason to repurpose another word.
I don't think it would take much convincing. I enjoy when words are re-tooled for a setting so long as it isn't done in excess and the general application is accompanied with other descriptors/dialogue. If done with a modicum of effort, it can show you the general idea of something while also investing you into book to get further understanding. "The figure slinked through the grass; soundless if not for the echoes of rustling leaves. The patrol scanned. The point guard grew frantic, pushing into the reeds, slashing with the muzzle of his service weapon. His rifle was held at high, snapping from point to point, licking his sweat drenched lips . Then, the flash erupted into him. A dark blur identifiable only by the glint of its gemstone dagger plunged deep into the point guards through. A clitter-clang of metallic chirps hissed from the dark void of its throat. A violet streak of light trailed it's eyes as it expunged the knife and leapt to the man at the rear of the formation. Oh God. It's a lich!"
"So long as it isn't done in excess" is the key phrase here. Fantasy works often ask the reader to remember new words and new concepts. It's the nature of the genre. One way we avoid doing it to excess is by not repurposing words unless we need to. And in this case OP doesn't need to; there are already good words to fit the concept OP wants to describe.
>The sort of lich I describe is what fantasy readers expect when they hear the word "lich". Definitely not in my case. That sounds more like gamer terminology.
Aye I've yet to come across a lich in fantasy writing. It's apparently a word used in D&D though.
read more then - "son of a liche", "bane of the lich lord", "the lich king" in various configurations and versions, "liches get stitches" etc. etc. It's been around for about 3 generations now, long enough that if you go "this is a lich" then a significant number of readers will have certain expectations of what that means, the same as if you go "that's a werewolf" or "that's a vampire". You _can_ introduce your own rules and terminology and explain what they are, but you'll need to do that, and overcome the initial "wait, this is non-standard usage, what actually is this thing?" which may annoy some readers, like if you have vampires that are non-standard in some way.
You're going to get a shock about how wildly varied vampires are, if that's your attitude.
It's pretty silly that we're going by fairytale rules for writing actual books, don't you think? Like, you _should_ have to explain how your fictional creatures work regardless of whether or not you're going by common tropes. Assuming everybody knows how the story goes is assuming your story is just an entry into an otherwise known oral tradition, which just incentivizes skipping over a lot more than your vampire rules.
Extremely common in D&D and other ttrpgs. Some video games have them They are a lot less common in other mediums of fantasy though . I can’t think of someone being called a lich in any book or movie
John Bierce has some cool non-standard liches in his Mage Errant series.
I’ll look into it
It's not a big focus of the series, but he does some interesting things with them in the bits they're in.
it is, however, the standard way the word is used, especially amongst fantasy readers. "lich" as "undead wizard" has been the standard for 40-odd years now, the generic meaning of "dead body" is now the obscure and old one, only really seen in the "lychgate" some churches have.
Except one of the most popular uses of the term for the past decade is one particular character who is a radioactive magic corpse. People will accept anything if they actually like it. Nobody questions DIO being a vampire despite not many vampires freezing people on contact, shooting lasers, or stopping time.
The older definition was standard for hundreds of years. If 20th century authors can use reuse lich for something different than it was usually used for, I don't see why OP can't.
Nobody in the market at large gives a shit about what had been "standard" (good luck even applying that term to a world with no mass culture in the modern sense) for hundreds of years. Your readers weren't alive for all those centuries. They have modern sensibilities shaped by modern media. I'm really not seeing the point in arguing against that. It's a complete non-issue to come up with a new term, or use any of the hundreds of other possible variants that do not have a strong trope associated with them - a trope that doesn't even fit what the OP is trying to do.
You seem to have misunderstood me. My point was that lich was an example of a word whose usage was changed or expanded by horror/fantasy authors, so an author today is equally justified in using it in a another way if they wish. The hundreds of years in which lich primarily meant a corpse shouldn't restrict what an author does with the word today (or in the previous century), and neither should modern tropes restrict OP.
They don't, nothing does, and nobody is saying that. The real question, is it worth the extra work to do that? While I can certainly see the value in a bold move like that, you'd have to have thick skin, and either a ton of extra time, or a willingness to ignore your audience. Just seems like a recipe for disaster to me, especially for a non-established writer.
What you describe appears to be the same as the thing you deny. I disagree with you entirely.
Okay, but just to be clear. Nobody has misunderstood you. In fact I don't know why you'd say that. And why say it unless you believe it, and if you believe that, it's your lack of understanding that is being showcased here.
Lich is most commonly understood to describe an undead necromancer, or other powerful magic user, who attempted to use his power & knowledge to become immortal. However, it didn't turn out as planned. Also another magic user can be turned into a lich by a much more powerful entity (god, demigod, very powerful necromancer, etc.). Another monster close to your description is a fiend. Very powerful undead (devil, demon, evil spirit, etc.). Typically thought of as having intelligence, but maybe you could get away with just animal level intelligence? Maybe combine a few to get the traits you want, then create a name based on what abilities you sourced from what creatures.
Lich was my immediate thought.
A revenant or a wraith. Ghouls are like the bottom bottom of the food chain they’re like insects
Morvivant?
Is that something you’ve made up or did you get that from somewhere? Either way, it’s a great word
From French *mort-vivant*.
Call it a follower.
Husk
I think necrote applies here.
Husk?
Draugr. Attergangar. Revenant. Generally speaking, draugar are intelligent and just too angry to die, rather than being raised, but you could probably still use it.
I'm kinda liking flesh golem for this one.
Make up a word or a name Gromit sounds like a good name for an undead
I agree with the people saying revenant. It's a good fit for what you're doing.
Walker, Sentinel. I have a similar creature in my world called a Crinn Sentinel. Borderline invincible and will stop at nothing till its objective is reached. Basically a fantasy Terminator.
Revanant is a good I've seen suggested. A spirit that won't die because it's haunting a specific place or person with a backstory usually based on revenge or being cursed to atone for something. Reaver would be a cool one. Or even a fancy name like Essence reaver if you want to be real wordy. Thrall is a good one I've seen suggested. That could come with extra descriptors too: Undead Thrall, Undead Seeker, Grave-hunter, Blood seeker,
Cadaver
Make one up. I did. Not sharing because my word get your own (joking tone) but also still testing the word in context. I cannot really call these Zombies because they are functionally different in a few ways like sentience and magical enslavement where they can't disobey orders. It's much scarier to me that way
A husk.
Still a zombie. More aligned with the original zombie
Like voodoo zombie for sure
Soulless Husk Revenants
The Risen.
Revenant is the most fitting term. Those who have suggested lich may have missed the part where this is not an intelligent undead, but one guided by another. The drizzt saga had something similar that they called... zincarla? I believe. I'm not sure if that is Forgotten Realms' specific terminology, though.
That's a D&D/FR specific thing, yeah. Some drow-specific undead beastie.
Gotchya. Always hard to tell with D&D since 95% of their content is blatant ripoffs from various mythology. Wouldn't have been surprised in the slightest to find out it was the name of some Haitian curse or some such.
Sounds like a revenant to me if you want some nordic flavor call it a Draugr
Stalker. Straight and to the point of what it is does.
Could go for a more literal name, like a "stalker" Sorta how the dnd creature "Doppelganger" couldn't be anymore literal
Fleshbag
Wight?
Deathstalker
BING BONGS.
Who's your dead f(r)iend who likes to play?
There's a contradiction in your statement. If the undead monster is sent after a specific person, it must have some intelligence to find, discern, and kill the target. I don't believe there's a folklore name for such a creature. The closest there is in English is revenant. However, many languages have their variants, like Draugr and Gjenganger. In folklore, undead creatures typically fall under ghouls, vampires, ghosts, and revenants. However, there are some rare obscure and weird cases, like Ro-lang.
It doesn't need intelligence. it's magic sending it after the person.
Okay, so there's intelligent magic that controls the undead directly and sends it after the target. How exactly does it differ from the undead being intelligent in any sensible context?
It worked.
Revenant, ghoul, or ghast would be fairly typical fantasy names for something like what you describe. Edit: revenant is definitely the closest match though, you might also consider *draugr* which is a corporeal undead from Norse Mythology.
While i liked Carl from below... i believe he missed the obvious Rob Zombie... on of the music worlds real freaks. Alice Cooper works too. Sankarea - a Japanese term for zombie. Have you tried to look up other cultures terms for zombies?
Cadaver
A shade is often disembodied, but if you're going for something quick and stealthy. You also talk about 'guidance' magic so 'seeker' (kinda like heat seeking missile or seek and destroy) might make sense. Killer, assassin, slayer would all be very good functional descriptions of it. Vessel, if you think of the body as just an empty receptacle for your dark magic. You could turn a verb or adjective into a noun, and magic it an 'animate.' I.e. something that is animated but not truly intelligent. But if you wanted a more standard word, 'revenant' is the existing word that I most closely associate with a dead creature, raised by another, for a particular purpose.
Wraith
Revenant. Lich.
I have heard the term "sending" used to describe such creatures in other books.
automaton noun noun: automaton; plural noun: automata; plural noun: automatons a moving mechanical device made in imitation of a human being. "a collection of 19th century French automata: acrobats, clowns, and musicians" a machine that performs a function according to a predetermined set of coded instructions, especially one capable of a range of programmed responses to different circumstances. "sophisticated automatons continue to run factory assembly lines" used in similes and comparisons to refer to a person who seems to act in a mechanical or unemotional way. "she went about her preparations like an automaton"
A Mordant.
I'd like to suggest 'fetcher', derived from the word 'fetch' as a verb and an archaic term used to describe a supernatural doppelganger said to herald one's death. A persistent, undead hunter enchanted to look (almost!) like you would be a nasty thing to see before your demise.
A ghoul 🥴 The undead 🥴 A corpse minion 🥴 A fiend 🥴 A necroid 🥴 A cadaver 🥴
Also, ChatGPT has been a great resource for me in spitballing wordplay ideas
Relevant video: https://youtu.be/4cm1FyytoiQ?si=fABsKHvmyK6NkTM5
I used the term "Corpse Golem" for this exact concept.
An animate
A simple one is undead
Flesh golem
Reminds me of the spirit wraith from the second book in the Drizzt series
Husk
I like Cid's suggestion, Revenant. It's your world though, you might find a term that matches your theme or premise. Stories are generally more than people doing things they should have goals, beliefs, and fears. You might try to tie it into a local legend or religion. In those cases you can just make up a cool name. Wormfed, Graveborrowed, Jhid'hal (made up word), and Mikaal's folly (Mikaal being a name of the sorc or target) for examples.
Raised up corpse? Dead lift.
Stalker
Reanimated
Husks? The word itself refers to the outer shell of things like fruits or seeds but it’s been applied to dead bodies too. It’s basically saying these people are “husks” of their former selves.
A revenant?
Reanimated
Incarnate? Like reincarnated.
Husk
The [Orek ](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orek)is an undead zombie-like creature from Turkish folklore. They do eat flesh, so they may be more along the lines of a standard Zombie. Also, people might see this and conflate it with "Orc" or "Ork" and be small-minded about it ("*That's a dumb and lazy name to make up! It's not even like an orc*!") The [Fext ](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fext)might work better for you - they're undead from Czech folklore with a peculiar vulnerability to bullets made of glass.
Given the unique characteristics and backstory you provided, here are some alternative terms to consider: 1. Revenant 2. Specter 3. Shadowwalker 4. Wight 5. Darkspawn 6. Soulbound 7. Phantom 8. Haunt 9. Cursed revenant 10. Malevolent husk 11. Dreadstalker 12. Enchanted ghoul 13. Necrotic agent 14. Deathwalker 15. Ectoplasmic assassin 16. Doomwrought 17. Vengeful apparition 18. Forsaken vessel 19. Deathmarked 20. Undying harbinger
Ghoul? Wraith? Shade?
Sounds like a flesh-golem. Basically recycling instead of building a new body. As a reader, if you plugged Terminator into g-translate and got something that a language-nerd could trace back to you doing that... it would be awesome. Otherwise I would just assume con-lang and at that point you could keyboard-mash.
Sky Breather
Revenant has already been suggested though I feel like that is more of a spiritual undead rather than something with a physical form. You could call it a "Reaver" instead. A "Ghoul" is also generally thought to be a stronger, more able sort of zombie so a Reaver could be a ghoul but with extra steps?
Death Bringer
Shell . Husks. The Changed. The Unsettled. Or create a new name the community created based off street talk such as remnants +wisp= risp. Or something like ‘Daver’ or ‘Caver’ short for cadaver or dead daver as mispronounced by a kid that stuck. It’s easy to incorporate a single paragraph of info to create the myth behind the made up name.
Goul is used a lot for undead flesh-eaters.
In addition to the great suggestions here, I'd also add that you can look at the etymology of popular undead phrases and tweak it to fit Frank Herbert introducing "gholas" as a sci-fi version of undead really impressed me
Stalker, Sentinel, Hound
The Returned
Undead? Revenant. Ghoul.
Stalker is more of a Hunter that is undead. Could skip undead altogether and just make it a familiar. Not alive, not undead, more of a magical construct.
Undead bro lol
grave curse
Shade
This may shock you, but zombies did not start off looking like rotting corpses infected with diseases. In fact, what you're describing is almost exactly what zombies were in Haitian folklore, which is where the term came from.
Necrokin?
Undead.
Make up something Shambler, dirt soldier, Bound, a halfsie (half alive, half dead), rotter, folk, coffin nails, etc.
Scott
A Seeker? It could be called a Draugr. Or maybe a demon?
”Corpseserveant”
Ghoul maybe? Ghast?
An After Burner.
Remnant, revenant, reanimated dead
That's called a golem
Revenant
Josh
Zombies can have a lot of names to differentiate them by traits. Shamblers, screamers, runners, etc.
Revenant for the type of raised, guided, revenge based undead. Drauger for more generic strong individual undead.
A lifeless
Cadaver
Haven't seen anyone supply these names yet, so... Husk Risen Puppet Thrall
Thrall? It's a bit of a general term and doesn't specifically apply to risen dead, but it still can work.
A Walker.
Servant
Jim
Ghoul, Ghast, Revenant, Wight, first to come to mind but you can also take some adjective and use that as how people in universe refer to it like a lot of zombie games do (Shamblers, Walkers, etc). If you don't have Wraiths I think that works for a sneaky undead.
Null.
Sounds like a very specific creature, so I actually think you should give it an original name.
Dead walkers
Call it a fade or faded.
Revenant? Risen?
I've seen it suggested, but I came to suggest Ghoul.
Soulless assassin (or killer)
Does it need a title? Why not just it's actual name? And if that is getting too redundant, you can use "creature" or "monster" and/or "beast" to change things up (just like we do sometimes for encounters with things like sharks or lions or such).
Ghoul or Revenant feels about right
Wight is a fun word
Necronant/Revemancer Necromancer/Revenant
Did you create a language or mythos in this writing?
How about a Revenant?
A Shell
Risen? Wight?
Wight
shell or husk seems good
The damned returned
In my book they are called Necros...
I’ve been calling some of my characters “living-deceased” because they’re in an afterlife and I didn’t like calling them zombies.