True Role of the Warrior, Priest, Thief and Wizard

[Jjeinn-tae]

Ok, while I bring this up for D&D, and my own system, these archetypes are still in other games, and video games, and thus I do not only wish to speak with D&D players. Whoo, run on sentence!

So really, when you think about these archetypes, what should they be doing. What should the archetypical wizard be capable of? Is the archetypical warrior more Conan, Aragorn, or maybe Spartacus? And does anything change should all four of these archetypes be working toward the same goal?


I am not entirely sure if I should say my thoughts here, but I will, if only to get conversation going.

I think all four of them share one quality, or at least are very capable of having one quality, leadership. You look all throughout literature, and you can find many characters that fit into these archetypes with strong leadership capabilities.

Among warriors, I mentioned this historical example of Spartacus (though I'm unsure he really fits in this category) Aragorn very much was a leader whenever Gandalf was not around (and even then, quite frequently) any tale about slaying a dragon inevitably has the eventual dragon slayer become a leader.

Priests almost by their nature fit into a leadership role, others that share their faith will naturally look to the priest for guidance. Wisdom from beyond their years (or maybe they are very old) leads well into this, as they are seen as the person who always knows the right thing to do. I am admittedly rather unfamiliar with this archetype, as its not in much of the reading I do, so while I'm sure there are examples, I do not know them.

Thieves seem to come in several flavors, probably more so than many other archetypes you could name. They could be a thug, a suave con-artist, benevolent, malevolent, organized and disorganized; among others I am sure. The one thing they have in common is they want to separate you from what you own. Among each of these, there is always a leader, the best conman, the toughest thug, The Godfather. Thieves just don't seem to operate well in fiction if there is not a king of thieves. Their leaders, as opposed to the courage of the warrior, or wisdom of the priest, are of a cunning variety. They are master tacticians, and if not 5 steps ahead of their opponent, they either lose, or pull out.

Each circle of wizards has its leader, and each individual wizard naturally gravitates to the role of leader when not among their own kind. They wield power beyond comprehension, which draws either respect or fear from others. Their connection to magic gives them insight others could not attain, and thus are the only ones able to plan around it. In a lot of ways, I would say the wizard leads like an intelligent thug, their power grants them their position, and their chief job is to plan, using great tactics. Their contingencies, instead of a knowledge of how people will react to their previous stage, are carefully plotted out to eliminate a counter they are not prepared for. Then again, there are not many wizards that successfully complete any plan, no matter how powerful they are, the good ones need trouble to be interesting, and the evil ones must eventually fall to the protagonists.

Of course, leadership is not really the main aspect I want to talk on, but if you disagree, I'm interested in hearing. I want to see if there's a consensus on what these people should be about, regardless of how they have been portrayed in any given setting.

[Xefas]

Those four "archetypes" are fairly vague and not greatly defined. I think, without greater definition, trying to figure out the "true" role is going to end up being a series of No True Scotsman type fallacies. I dunno what kind of results you're looking for, but supplying some kind of guidelines might help narrow down the results.
The archetypal warrior should be made of brass. Like, literally. Literally, his skin is made of brass. And he should be able to shoot green nuclear fire out of his face and cause radiation poisoning just by walking around.

The priest archetype is all about the latex-clad nuns that summon swarms of locusts made of candy and terraform the land into deserts made of silver sand. And who hate gods, obviously.

The typical wizard has a giant mutant crab claw for an arm, has telekinesis, and can tap into horrors from beyond the Conceptual Without to scream really freaking loudly and turn people into glass.

The archetypal thief runs all the time. He just runs. Constantly. He never gets tired, and he never stops; he literally eats and breathes via running. He doesn't fight; he just runs really fast and people die. He doesn't steal; he runs at things and they become his.

Case in point:http://i925.photobucket.com/albums/ad91/bluejanus/iconicexalts.png
Not being pedantic. I just play Exalted.

[Jjeinn-tae]

On your first spoiler, it probably will bring that type of fallacy about, and I'm honestly unsure what kind of answer I'm wanting, guess that's why I'm asking. :smalltongue:


Exalted continues to confuse me to know end, but that wizard is actually rather helpful... I would say I'd probably play a "thief" there though. :smallbiggrin:

[Xefas]

On your first spoiler, it probably will bring that type of fallacy about, and I'm honestly unsure what kind of answer I'm wanting, guess that's why I'm asking. :smalltongue:

Well, so long as you're prepared.

In a more general sense, if I were trying to make as much of a genre-neutral definition of these four achetypes as possible, I'd define them in terms of how they go about solving problems.

The warrior solves problems directly. If there is a knot, he severs it. If there is a wall, he knocks it down. If he can't persuade someone, he keeps trying until someone breaks.

The priest solves problems by proxy. He trades power, giving and taking as needed. He cannot defeat a dragon, but he can incite a lynch-mob to do it for him. He cannot hit a target at three hundred paces, but he can give someone with more skill the extra confidence, strength, and focus to do so, whether by magic, technology, or more mundane means.

The wizard solves problems via change. If he cannot solve a problem because he is deficient in some way, he changes himself. If he cannot solve a problem because the situation isn't right, he changes the situation. If he cannot solve a problem because there is no solution, he changes the problem.

The thief solves problems with breadth. He can't knock down a wall like the warrior. He can't start a mob like the priest. He can't fundamentally change the nature of situations like the wizard. But, he doesn't have to.

No one in the party knows how to sail a ship? The thief does. No one knows how to hack a computer? The thief does. No one knows the esoteric dinner etiquette of this particular sect of demon worshiping elves? Well, it's a good thing the thief passed through these parts a few years ago and picked them up.

He has very little raw power. But, eventually, everyone else reaches the limit of theirs, and the thief is there to pick up the slack. To fill in the gaps. No one notices him - he just isn't impressive - until he isn't there and they realize just how convenient he makes their lives.

-----

I like this sort of distinction because it isn't reliant on what you can do, but how you can use it. For instance, someone who can use magic is typically classified as a "wizard". But, if their only capacity for magic is chucking giant explosive fireballs, how are they all that different from the guy who solves all of his problems by sticking a sharp piece of metal in it? Their mode of operation is exactly the same.

[Jjeinn-tae]

Hmm, and I think that is exactly what I was looking for. Thank you Xefas. :smallbiggrin: Hopefully that doesn't prevent other people from chiming in though.

[Mastikator]

All this depends on the context. What kind of world is it? High fantasy/Tippyverse? Low Fantasy? Medieval? Fantasy punk? Steam punk? Cyber fantasy? Tolkien world? Anime world?

[Jjeinn-tae]

There are four "eras" that I'm particularly interested in with this, but any are at least interesting.

For the eras that it would be helpful for me:

High Fantasy
Medieval
Renaissance
and Modern Fantasy I would call it, maybe its what you can Fantasy Punk. Basically dealing with a fantasy world where technology did not stagnate with the addition of magic.

[aetherialDawn]

Regrettably, I didn't edit this much. Long, and may still have problems. It's a good question though. I basically typed what I thought as things went along, so the closer to the bottom it is, the more I support it. I do think Xefas is pretty good here, though.

I'm afraid that I have to go with Xefas; defining people apart from their specific methods and resources and whatnot tends to lead to defining what variety of method they choose. In a world where everyone can change the situation at all times (everyone has Wizard as their set of abilities)
a Warrior would change the situation to give himself the advantage
a Priest would change the situation to give his ally the advantage
a Wizard would change the situation to something the opponent cannot deal with, I suppose
a Thief would try to trick/force/lead his opponent into making a mistake, I suppose
Clearly, Wizard and Thief provide a little difficulty here. However...

Warriors do, Priests facilitate, Wizards go against the grain, and Thieves do 'something else' (The thief definition is more specific than it sounds. See the fourth spoiler box.)
A warrior is the person who does, and might be thought of as 'simple' for that reason, but it would be because he's found his goal, and seeks it, without the extra fluff. He has fewer steps because that's the situation he seeks out, and in his element, he wins because he gets there first.
A priest is the person who facilitates, and so he tends to seem dependent upon his allies. But that's only because he adds to what his allies do, and makes what they do his as well; If a warrior solves a problem he could not have because of the priest, then the priest is as much the cause as the warrior. In his element, he wins because the goal is beyond a single person.
A wizard goes against whatever the norm is; or rather, he ensures that things happen as he says by changing the situation. When everyone can change the situation, he manuevers the enemy to a place where they can't. He wins by being in (or making) situations where his is the only strength that applies.
A thief manipulates, although I use that term very broadly. It certainly doesn't need to be social, but he's looking for a way to use what he has to pull the rug out from under someone/something else. Magic door is invincible? Don't try again (warrior), don't try harder (priest), don't try another thing on the door (wizard), try something else entirely. He wins by changing tacks when the normal methods fail.

For High Fantasy,
Warrior is the king who responds to problems in kind. A man who attacks his kingdom will find himself rebuffed by defenses.
Priest is the king who responds to problems by gathering overwhelming force. A man who attacks his kingdom will find the Priest's defenses lacking - until the Priest has managed to gather all his allies for an army three times as large.
Wizard is the king who responds to problems by making them not-be. A man who attacks his kingdom is likely to find his supply lines cut, and his attack no longer feasible.
Thief is the king who responds to problems either in whatever way is most convenient, or by trying something that he can do and the enemy can't. A man who attacks his kingdom is likely to find that whatever weakness he left gets exploited mercilessly - if he brought all his supplies so the lines couldn't be cut, he'll get forced into a siege. If he uses supply lines to ensure that can't happen, he'll find the Thief exploiting his reduced manpower. If he truly wins, then the Thief will probably be the first to fold his cards of the four possible kings, setting himself up for better luck next time instead of trying to win every time as it arrives.
(By the way, they'll all use the Magical Weakness of the foe's army if they find it. But the Warrior seeks to ensure he doesn't need it, the Priest does the same, the Wizard tries to make one, and the Thief tries to find one.)

For Medieval,
The kings are more or less the same, except there's no Magical Weakness, and it's a lot harder for both parties - attacking requires a lot more preparation, and defending thus has to face a far better prepared attack.

For Renaissance,
The kings are more or less the same, but a Warrior uses new technology to the utmost, a Priest is essentially the same, a Wizard tries to find something that counters the enemy's technology, and a Thief tries to find another way around it. Perhaps a new use for new technology, since he lacks the Wizard's ability to invent new technology but probably has more flexibility.

For Modern Fantasy,
It's pretty much like Renaissance, I'd assume, but I'm not 100% sure what you mean.

Also, for Exalted, in a general sense,
Solars and Abyssals are Warriors
Sidereals and Dragon-Bloods are Priests
Infernals are Wizards, kind of (Wizards commanded by crazy Warriors.)
Lunars and Alchemicals are (different kinds of) Thieves


Regrettably, I didn't edit this much. Long, and may still have problems. It's a good question though. I basically typed what I thought as things went along, so the closer to the bottom it is, the more I support it. I do think Xefas is pretty good here, though.

[DragonOfUndeath]

For Modern Fantasy,
It's pretty much like Renaissance, I'd assume, but I'm not 100% sure what you mean.

Magitech
Magic-powered bullets, Create Food Traps and the Internet.

Warrior: Uses their raw power to solve problems.They are the ones who say things like Xykon's (OOTS) speech on Power

Priest: Uses the power of others, acting as a force multiplier. They are likely to say things like "Quantity has a Quality all of it's own"

Wizard: Uses subtle touches of power to solve problems. "Do not meddle in the affairs of Wizards, for they are subtle and quick to anger

Thief: Uses their enemy's power against them. "That most dangerous of opponents, the one who took pains to understand the position of his adversary"

[Morph Bark]

Case in point:http://i925.photobucket.com/albums/ad91/bluejanus/iconicexalts.png
Not being pedantic. I just play Exalted.

So the one with the gun is the Bard? :smallwink:

[Combat Reflexes]

1. Warrior. Can kill someone in a turn.
2. Priest. Can kill someone in half a turn.
3. Wizard. Can kill someone when it's not his turn.
4. Thief. Can make 3 idiots kill things for him.

Done :smallbiggrin:

[Mastikator]

There are four "eras" that I'm particularly interested in with this, but any are at least interesting.

For the eras that it would be helpful for me:

High Fantasy

Warrior stabs and smacks things, often directed by the wizard. Or a mercenary for hire.
The priest keeps people alive, they remove all diease and feed everyone.
The thief who is an outlaw steal things and kill people, maybe an assassin for hire or an secret agent .
The wizard makes the world go around, they get the cities to float in the sky, the teleportation circles to work, the magic items to function.


Medieval
The warrior does the same as in high fantasy, except directed by other more experienced warriors, and sometimes priests.
The priest blesses their followers and bestows divine favors of various magnitudes.
The thief is the same as in high fantasy, except with less magi-tech gadgets.
The wizard sits alone in his towers studying magic to keep his mind busy so he won't weep over how alone he is.


Renaissance
Everything the same as high fantasy, but also with fancier clothes, nicer culture and some more tech.


and Modern Fantasy I would call it, maybe its what you can Fantasy Punk. Basically dealing with a fantasy world where technology did not stagnate with the addition of magic.
Same as Renaissance, except with normal technology AND magic. Like in that Harry Potter mythos.

[obliged_salmon]

Warrior, priest, wizard and thief are all "archetypes" only from a mechanical perspective, in my opinion. Those terms have nothing to do with literary, or character-based "archetypes." For those, you want terms like "brash youth," or "anti-hero." Which might make for really interesting classes and mechanic design for a game, actually.

I'm wrong, though. Warrior is a legitimate literary archetype. A warrior is one who uses personal strength to confront problems. He is distinguished from those around him, because he has the will and the ability to change his circumstances.

Anyway, I guess I'm saying that warriors, priests, wizards and thieves as definitions don't interest me, and I'd rather scrap them entirely from any project attempting to call itself roleplaying.

[Morph Bark]

The warrior does the same as in high fantasy, except directed by other more experienced warriors, and sometimes priests.
The priest blesses their followers and bestows divine favors of various magnitudes.
The thief is the same as in high fantasy, except with less magi-tech gadgets.
The wizard sits alone in his towers studying magic to keep his mind busy so he won't weep over how alone he is.


Everything the same as high fantasy, but also with fancier clothes, nicer culture and some more tech.

Considering he put Medieval and High Fantasy as seperate entries and Modern Fantasy rather than just Modern, I believe Jjeinn-tae meant to refer to magicless Medieval and Renaissance periods (as in the real world's history).


I have to say though that this approach is new to me and much better than what I've seen before. Usually they're approached from the angle of "what do they do in a party" or "how do they attack". Making the definition more about a personality kind of thing and making it so that it doesn't just apply to situations involving a party is much better. After all, some adventures just feature a lone "priest", "thief" or "wizard".

[Jjeinn-tae]

1. Warrior. Can kill someone in a turn.
2. Priest. Can kill someone in half a turn.
3. Wizard. Can kill someone when it's not his turn.
4. Thief. Can make 3 idiots kill things for him.

Done :smallbiggrin:
Heh, ain't that the truth. :smallamused:

But wow, nice to see more input here. :smallbiggrin:


Warrior, priest, wizard and thief are all "archetypes" only from a mechanical perspective, in my opinion. Those terms have nothing to do with literary, or character-based "archetypes." For those, you want terms like "brash youth," or "anti-hero." Which might make for really interesting classes and mechanic design for a game, actually.

I'm wrong, though. Warrior is a legitimate literary archetype. A warrior is one who uses personal strength to confront problems. He is distinguished from those around him, because he has the will and the ability to change his circumstances.

Anyway, I guess I'm saying that warriors, priests, wizards and thieves as definitions don't interest me, and I'd rather scrap them entirely from any project attempting to call itself roleplaying.

Yeah, I agree with you there actually, of the numerous reasons I'm asking (beyond mere curiosity) is for one of the maiden voyages of a game system I'm working on, which while it is normally class-less, I haven't solidified true character creation rules for it, as the full spectrum is not required for the first projects with it. I speak of computer games though, (and if you're worried about me taking the advice just to make money, the project it applies to is a free flash game.)

I also like to ravamp things though, and I've really wanted to do a truly balanced "main four" classes for D&D 3.5. I feel the best way to do that, is to know how the archetypes they represent tackle things, then figure out what abilities would lend to that.

I would also venture to say that Wizard and Thief are indeed literary archetypes (but then again... my college literature thought wizard is too... maybe I'm wrong then.) Merlin, Gandalf, ...maybe David Lo Pan... The BBEG in Conan... There's sometimes a wizard involved with that dragon the hero must contend with eventuallly. When they're on the "good side" they usually have a hands off advisory role it seems, while antagonistic wizards cause trouble for the hero in ways that cannot be predicted. Admittedly though, this is more common in Eastern literature, from my understanding.

Thief is pretty broad, but there are so many stories dealing with the perfect crime, the King of Thieves. It's a pretty common archetype, but probably the least defined of the four I brought up.

Priests do seem more or less exclusively in the realm of Roleplaying though, at least in the fashion I'm interested in here.


Considering he put Medieval and High Fantasy as seperate entries and Modern Fantasy rather than just Modern, I believe Jjeinn-tae meant to refer to magicless Medieval and Renaissance periods (as in the real world's history).


I have to say though that this approach is new to me and much better than what I've seen before. Usually they're approached from the angle of "what do they do in a party" or "how do they attack". Making the definition more about a personality kind of thing and making it so that it doesn't just apply to situations involving a party is much better. After all, some adventures just feature a lone "priest", "thief" or "wizard".

I was actually just using the terms that Mastikor brought up, and made up Modern Fantasy because I wasn't sure Fantasy Punk was what I wanted... Though Cyber Punk would probably be closer, come to think of it. Still, in the setting those relate to, magic was scarce, so Low-Magic would definitely be fitting. Really the modern its still not too common, just the internet makes it seem to be everywhere.

[Aux-Ash]

In my meaning, it is best to look at the very fundamentals of what the archetype is to figure out what role it should have.

The Warrior, the oldest of the archetypes. Older than dirt in fact. For as long as we have had recorded stories we have had the Warrior archetype. It is the leader, the soldier and the killer. But above all. The Protector.
Wether the knight who protects his subjects as part of the feudal contract, the slave soldier protecting his owner, the thug protecting his boss or the templar/paladin protecting an ideal. A warrior's role is to protect, always to protect.
They should excel in combat, but also retain the ability in other situations. Wether that is fording the strong river to help attach a rope on the tree on the other side, share food and rest in a shortage since they can handle lacking it better or protect the party socially through authority or the subtle threat of violence.

Moving on to the Thief. What is a Thief? A Thief is a trickster, a con-artist, a wall-climber, a fraud, a bandit, highwayman, pirate and rogue. A individual that preys on society's weakness. Oucasts, outlaws and villains. With no protection of society to count on.
A Thief is a survivor. In a world where noone cares for them they protect themselves, feed themselves and help themselves to succes. A Thief who cannot survive dies or becomes imprisoned.
They provide the party soloutions through survival and by opening doors (figureative and literal). Wether that is unlocking the locked door, bluffing, bribing and lying their way past a guard, scrounging up food and supplies in a shortage or by creating distractions in a fight.

The Priest. What is a Priest? Teacher, Leader, Administrator and Scholar. They are the learned, the educated and the studious. Ultimately, priests does not serve the gods as much as they serve the gods' people.
The Priest is a guide. They provide guidance in all matters that they are sought for.
Their role in the party is just that: to provide guidance and knowledge to the party. Wether that is by pouring over old tomes to find lost knowledge and lore to help them in the situation, lead and support the party through combat, tend to the injured or solve social problems with rethoric, lore and an understanding of finances.

Finally the wizard. Hardest to define since what a wizard is depends on what magic is. Magic is usually very dependant on story. But one thing that it very often have in common, particularly in the old stories:
Magic is fantastic. It is whimsical. It is Inexplicable. In a word: arcane. Mysterious.
It's about setting up wards to keep the unknowable evil away. It is about oneiromancy, astrology and necromancy (speaking with the dead to learn the future). It is about faustian deals. It is about a fantastic dress that fades after the twelfth tolling of the bell at midnight. It is about turning the rude one into a toad and back to teach him a lesson. It is about never truly dying because of a promise not kept. It is about the flame of Ûdun and the flame of Anor. A kiss that turns a frog into a prince. Atlantis, Shangri-La and El Dorado.
It is all about the Inexplicable. The Unpredictable. The Unbreakable. The Consequential.
That is what a Wizard should add to a party. The means to handle that which cannot be understood. The means to to know what shouldn't be known. And the raw, unpredictable power of magic... and paying the price it will demand.
In a way the Wizard is about control. The ward to keep evil away, the learning of the future, the sensing of a crime long gone, the taking in a spirit so the party can speak to it and the subtle threat of curses and hexes or the promises of blessings and wards to make the silent speak (or for that matter... communication with animals and/or the dead).

Like mentioned above. Just my meaning on what the different class archetypes covers (or should cover).

[Cespenar]

Xefas pretty much nailed it. But I have one nit to pick. Rogue and Wizard, to be exact. Rogue is a toolbelt. Wizard often is also a toolbelt. But a magical toolbelt. This is a design mistake, in my opinion. Wizards should be about using magic to deal with magic, not using magic to deal with the mundane. That would both balance the power of magic, and also give it a sense of needed mystery and specialization, in my opinion. Wizards should be there to equal the grounds with other supernatural elements. Knowing the weak points of magical creatures, defending against the arcane, destroying the arcane, etc.

That's what I would do, anyway.

[Eric Tolle]

I was going to say something silly, but damn it all, Exalted beat me to it. So l'll have a go at it.

Warrior: defeats problems and tells his story through personal prowness, training, and strength of body/mind/psyche. Example, Captain America, Captain Kirk.

Priest: overcomes problems and tells her story through personal relationship with god(s), spirit realm or spirituality. Example: Yuna, Angela "Angie" Mitchell.

Wizard: solves problems and tells his story through knowledge, reasoning and wisdom. Example: Encyclopedia Brown, Reed Richards

Rogue: resolves problems and tells her story through cleverness and deception. Examples: Fujiko Mine, Harriet Tubmant

[Frozen_Feet]

Warrior, thief, wizard and priest are too broad to be distinct archetypes by themselves. Each can be broken up to several much better defined archetypes.

For Warrior, we have the raging barbarian, the chivalrous knight, hunter of the wilds, the master swordsman, the oriental martial artist, the bear-like wrestler and so on.

For Thief, we have the Noble Rogue like Robin Hood, the amoral assassin, the gentleman thief, the cat burglar and the hapless fool who just happens to stumble on valuable artefacts.

For Priest, we have the scholarly monk, the valiant crusader, the cynical zealot, the kind reverend and the seedy cultist.

For Wizard, we have the necromancer, the demon summoner, the witch who lives in a swamps and eats little kids, goofy old man who blows up things, the alchemist and yadda yadda.

You'll note that many games that have the basic four classes later allows specialization to any of these more specific roles. It stands to a reason they do this. Trying to make one character representative of all possible characters falling under broad umbrella terms like Warrior or Wizard just causes heinous balance problems, as perhaps best witnessed in D&D 3.5.

[Mando Knight]

The archetypal warrior should be made of brass. Like, literally. Literally, his skin is made of brass. And he should be able to shoot green nuclear fire out of his face and cause radiation poisoning just by walking around.
...Actually, that sounds about right.

Except you forgot the hundred-feet-long and has-wings parts. :smalltongue:

The way I see it:

Warrior: in battle, he fights at the front, smashing through the opposition by the strength and skill of his sword arm. As a leader, he especially helps those without their own magic, or when those with magic find their power failing them. He inspires others by the sweat of his brow and the work of his hands.

Priest: in battle, he rarely fights himself, instead praying for divine intervention, aiding his companions with celestial support and holy fire. As a leader, he provides direction and morale through faith.

Thief: rather than fighting directly as a warrior would, the thief prefers to rely on tricks and agility in combat... even if he's not fighting "dirty," it's impossible to know which attacks are feints until you find his knife in your neck. When leading, he finds himself applying such means on a larger scale, deceiving his foes (or allies) into getting the desired outcome, or showing others how to spot such tricks.

Wizard: magic. Regardless of how he got it or uses it, it dominates everything he does. In a fight, the right words of power could cripple a foe, crumble a wall, devastate an army. Otherwise, if found guiding others, he is often found as a teacher. If not taking on apprentices to the arcane arts, then bemusing his companions with errant strands of thought that inexplicably lead them to the solutions to their problems.

Obviously, you can mix and match your archetypes, since these are fairly broad as-is. A modern commando would be a Warrior and a Thief, in that martial prowess is channeled into covert action or unusual tactics. The Paladin is both Priest and Warrior. A Thief-Wizard uses magic for his tricks rather than simply sleight of hand, crafting his spells more cunningly. A Wizard-Priest channels the power of the deity more directly than other priests, often capable of far more grandiose displays of divine wrath than most of the devout.

[obliged_salmon]

Yeah, I agree with you there actually, of the numerous reasons I'm asking (beyond mere curiosity) is for one of the maiden voyages of a game system I'm working on, which while it is normally class-less, I haven't solidified true character creation rules for it, as the full spectrum is not required for the first projects with it. I speak of computer games though, (and if you're worried about me taking the advice just to make money, the project it applies to is a free flash game.)

I also like to ravamp things though, and I've really wanted to do a truly balanced "main four" classes for D&D 3.5. I feel the best way to do that, is to know how the archetypes they represent tackle things, then figure out what abilities would lend to that.

I would also venture to say that Wizard and Thief are indeed literary archetypes (but then again... my college literature thought wizard is too... maybe I'm wrong then.) Merlin, Gandalf, ...maybe David Lo Pan... The BBEG in Conan... There's sometimes a wizard involved with that dragon the hero must contend with eventuallly. When they're on the "good side" they usually have a hands off advisory role it seems, while antagonistic wizards cause trouble for the hero in ways that cannot be predicted. Admittedly though, this is more common in Eastern literature, from my understanding.

Thief is pretty broad, but there are so many stories dealing with the perfect crime, the King of Thieves. It's a pretty common archetype, but probably the least defined of the four I brought up.

Priests do seem more or less exclusively in the realm of Roleplaying though, at least in the fashion I'm interested in here.

Sure, there are plenty of examples of people IN literature who refer to themselves as "wizard" and "thief," but it's not a literary archetype. You'd call Merlin and Gandalf and Ben Kenobi "mentor" archetypes. Their job is to guide the hero onward to his destiny. The Godfather is a sort of "anti-hero" and also a sort of "dark reflection/destiny" of the protagonist, Michael. When Michael becomes Godfather, then he's the tragic hero.

If you're specifically trying to homage DnD, but be responsible about it, I'd suggest giving your warrior "class" abilities that focus on rooting out and confronting his enemies (i.e. "challenge to duel," or "strike at the heart"). Priest can have abilities that manipulate the energies of those around him (i.e. "fiery sermon" or "burn in effigy"). Wizard can have abilities that break the unwritten rules of the game (i.e. "reset the clock" or "read omens/augury"). Thief can have abilities that cater to planning and strategy (i.e. "force negotiation" or "reroute flow of trade").

I don't really know the scope of your game, but those are my thoughts.

[Analytica]

Warrior works capably within the rules of the physical world.
Thief breaks the rules of the physical world.
Priest works capably within the rules of the mystical world.
Wizard breaks the rules of the mystical world.