What do locals in a D&D setting (any edition) call PC class holders?

[Scalenex]

A first level fighter outclasses a first level warrior. A fifth level fighter would be a living legend to a first level warrior. A tenth level fighter would be a demigod. A twentieth level fighter is almost a god. Spellcasters would be even more impressive. D&D and Pathfinder worlds tend to have a lot of fighters, wizards, clerics, and whatnot running around.

I figure in civilized lands the nobility is going to have the lion share of PC classes. They need to maintain their power, so they probably train as many of their sons and daughters to be fighters, wizards, bards, whatever. They would likely to try to win the loyalty of very high level PC class holders of common birth by bestowing titles or in extreme cases, marriage proposals. At the very least they can try to buy the goodwill of adventurers with gold.

A few peasants and artisan class people beat the odds and get the capabilities of a PC class. You get wandering mercenaries, oddball wizards, various priesthoods, and crafty thieves’ guilds that train their own potent recruits. Some of these groups are tight with the nobles, some are not. Some monsters gain PC class levels.

In the Order of the Stick, the denizens of the world are okay saying “high level PC class holders,” but what do the denizens of a D&D world with roleplaying constraints call “PC class holders.”

What is the general term (encompassing all classes)?

What is the term for a PC class holder part of the nobility? Is there a separate term for such people who are married in? What about people who aren’t part of the nobility but work on their payroll?

What is term for a loose common born PC class holder? Is there a separate term for one who is actively opposed to the nobles or is otherwise a criminal or outcast? Are their terms to distinguish between those who got their abilities from a guild or coven versus those who maybe had one mentor and/or the school of hard knocks?

Is there a different term for PC class holders from other nations? Demihumans? Monsters?

Is there a nickname or modifier for low level or high level to any of these?

Would a high level NPC class holder be indistinguishable to most “normals” from a mid evel PC class holder, and thus they would be lumped in the same categories?

[Anymage]

Generally "heroes" or "adventurers". Then again, I've always felt like PC types get their fame less from simply being exceptional, and more because being exceptional allows them to do exceptional things. Those deeds are what let them stand out.

As for how obviously PC-ish a PC is, that depends on class to a degree that makes generalizing pointless. Warriors, fighters, and knights all occupy a very similar niche, and someone would have to be especially astute to notice what shticks separate one heavily armed fighting man from another. Wizards and clerics are generally easy to spot for what they are (the former being scientist-spellcasters who tote their spellbooks around, the latter being holy spellcasters who regularly need to invoke their faith to get effects), but an outsider would have to be especially clued in to tell the difference between a sorcerer and a psion. Still, my main point still stands; so long as their exceptional abilities and spirits allow them to perform exceptional deeds, they're heroes and acknowledged as such.

[The Glyphstone]

'Dangerous'.

[1337 b4k4]

In my games they're called people, because classes and levels don't exist in the game world. They're pure game level abstractions designed to facilitate table top play. Now obviously characters have have enough experience and exploits to qualify as a high level character might be nobles or masters or some sort and even famous local or regional people. They may have titles granted by local authorities, but that's about the extent of it.

[hymer]

What is the general term (encompassing all classes)?

As mentioned above, 'heroes' or 'adventurers' is probably as good as it gets (yes, better even than 'dangerous' ). From an in-world perspective, these people aren't a group. We don't consider that there is a group of people, who have tremendous skills in firefighting, teaching grade schoolers, road maintenance, and calculating budgets. They're absolutely essential for our societies, but we don't have a concept for the most skilled among these people. They're rather too diverse.

[Zilong]

'Dangerous'.

to expand: "Oh **** it's them!!"
or the easier one: "murderhobo"

[BWR]

The King
The Empress
The Hierarch
Lord/Lady
That weird old man
My neighbor Jane, who fought in the wars
Bob
Mommy
That bastard who wanted the mountains to fly so now my crops don't get any sunlight
Bah! Children these days!


In short, they are people and referred to or addressed by name, occupation, reputation or status, not some weird out of game concept like 'high level'.

[Anonymouswizard]

Whatever they want to be called, do you want to risk angering them?

In all seriousness, that's no equivalent to Shadowrun with an explicit in universe name for PC types. Adventurer, hero, mercenary, that crazy dude, Geoff, Sir Geoffrey of Reddragonsland, oh no not him again, gullible idiots, elites, problem solvers, or many more completely valid options.

[johnbragg]

What is the general term (encompassing all classes)?

I don't think there is one, at least in most settings.

What is the term for a PC class holder part of the nobility? Is there a separate term for such people who are married in? What about people who aren’t part of the nobility but work on their payroll?

I think the generic term would simply be "the nobility". In a given setting, there may be a more developed language to draw distinctions within that group. From a pig farmer's perspective, it doesn't much matter whether the local swordsman is a nephew of the baron, an ennobled "knight" or a "man-at-arms" hoping to become ennobled. From the perspective of the baron or the nephew or the knight or the man-at-arms, it matters a lot.

What is term for a loose common born PC class holder?

That's going to be very setting specific. In a setting where the nobility is a settled thing, and where a big chunk of PC class holders are nobles, there probably is a term for common-born PC classholders. In fact, there is probably a set of terms, ranging from reasonably-polite to deadly-insult. (In HArry Potter, Muggleborns and Mudbloods).

If you're looking for a term for a dangerous PC not aligned with a noble house, "ronin" springs to mind. Mercenaries, adventurers, sellswords, hired guns.

Is there a separate term for one who is actively opposed to the nobles or is otherwise a criminal or outcast?

Rebel, criminal, outlaw, "wanted: dead or alive"?

Are their terms to distinguish between those who got their abilities from a guild or coven versus those who maybe had one mentor and/or the school of hard knocks?

Very specific. Guildsmen, Academics, "proper wizards", other terms derived from the particular guild/coven/school/group, vs hedge-wizards, dilletantes, renegades, "dandelions" (or some other weed, if you want to throw just-a-bit of shade at their origins).

Is there a different term for PC class holders from other nations? Demihumans? Monsters?

(String of racial/ethnic epithets)?

Is there a nickname or modifier for low level or high level to any of these?

Hmm. Probably not. To a Death Eater, Hermione Granger will always be a Mudblood, even if she sets herself up as witch-empress on a throne atop a castle built of Pureblood skulls.

The terms won't especially change--just how often you use the politer one vs the less polite one, and how careful you are about being overheard.

Would a high level NPC class holder be indistinguishable to most “normals” from a mid evel PC class holder, and thus they would be lumped in the same categories?

Probably so. People aren't reading each others builds and character sheets, so they're going to have a fairly vague idea of levels of capability. A 10th level adept, 7th level cleric or sorcerer are roughly equal in terms of capability--more capable than any low level characters, less capable than high level Tier 1 casters or high level aristocrats (note here that past mid-level, character power within society is going to draw more on social rank than on BAB, HP, AC. Spells, of course, bestow rank.)

[Blacky the Blackball]

In my (5th edition) setting, it depends on the class, but they almost all have formal or semi-formal apprenticeships and are considered to be a "career", so people do acknowledge them and talk about them in-character. It helps that adventuring is seen as a respectable career and method of social mobility (most nobles are ex-adventurers). The average commoner might not be able to tell the difference between a wizard, a sorcerer, and a warlock by seeing them cast a spell, for example; but they will be aware that not all magic-users are the same and that some get it from books, some from natural talent, and some from pacts with entities of some kind. More educated people will be familiar with the different classes and what they can do.

• Barbarian - the ability for barbarians to enter a frenzy is a clear distinguishing feature that people recognise, although they're generally all called berserkers.
• Bard - basically, bards are potential wizards that for one reason or another didn't get an education at the Mage's Guild and instead apprentice themselves to an existing bard; the existence of (and abilities of) bards is well known by the general public because they're one of the classes they have the most contact with.
• Cleric - since they run the temples and churches (I don't hold with the "most priests aren't clerics" trope in my setting) everyone knows about them and what they can do - they're probably the type of spellcaster most understood by the common folk.
• Druid - as with clerics, but from nature worshipping religion rather than worship if the gods; people in the countryside will be very famililar with druids and what they can do and those in cities will at least have heard of them.
• Fighter - the difference between a fighter and "someone who fights" is that a fighter has studied and trained extensively in formal fighting styles that most would find very hard to master (think Princess Bride); other warriors may recognise a few of the moves, and the fighter will be noted as someone out of the ordinary - so they're recognised as a member of a particular group of people with a distinguishing feature common to them, even if there's no formal name for them.
• Monk - you become a monk by training at a monastary, and as such monks are known by
• Paladin - the oaths are formal knightly orders with their own heraldry and history, and a paladin is therefore recognised as such more than most classes.
• Ranger - rangers are taught the secrets of their class by druids, and as such being "a ranger" has an in-character meaning, as opposed to merely being someone at home in the wilderness (which would just be someone with the outlander background).
• Rogue - merely growing up on the streets and being a bit shifty isn't enough to make you a rogue, that's just the urchin or criminal background; being a rogue is more than that, and is the result of intensive training by the Thieves Guild (which, despite the archaic name, isn't very involved in organised crime).
• Sorcerer - sorcerers begin exhibiting random magical abilities at an early age (but not all to the extent of a wild mage), so they're a known thing in the world - the Mage's Guild will take them in and teach them how to control their abilities, but this is not always necessary and some will learn how to do that themselves.
• Warlock - people are aware that they exist, and the more educated will actually use the term "warlock" for them; but since you can become one in secret they're not always identified.
• Wizard - will be a member of the Mage's Guild, and almost certainly have been enroled at one of the universities that the guild sponsors and been taught magic there, formally qualifying as a wizard.

So of all the classes, only fighters and rogues are not called by a class (or subclass) name, but both those classes consist of skilled people who have had extensive training of a specific type - so both the classes are considered to be things in the setting and people will recognise the difference between them even if there's no single in-character name for them.

It also means that the PCs aren't unique snowflakes - there are many other NPCs of each class around, and until the PCs get to high (15+) level there will likely be quite a few around who are better at what they do than the PCs are.

While levels aren't reified in the setting in the same way that classes are, there will be in-character discussions of whether a wizard is "able to cast spells of the fourth circle, or just those of the third" or whether a fighter has yet mastered the "two strikes manoeuvre" - many (but not all) class features are recognised as in-setting abilities and are roughly ranked in terms of how good you need to be at your profession before you can master them.

Of course, this sort of setting only works if you don't use multiclassing (which we don't) and you treat classes as archetypes/careers where the fluff is as important as the crunch (which we do) rather than just as blocks of build mechanics.

[Nifft]

'Dangerous'.

to expand: "Oh **** it's them!!"

These seem on point.

The one thing I'd add is the suicidal recklessness which underlies most acts of PC heroism.

PCs are crazy drunk YOLO teenagers with military-grade firearms, except of course the Wizards who are crazy drunk YOLO teenagers with nukes.

[LibraryOgre]

"Adventurer" is a not-uncommon catch-all, and gets applied pretty equally to Warrior classes and Rogue classes... wizards are priests are more often known as that, but might get grouped in with other adventurers.

[Nifft]

Priests are a good point, and a noteworthy exception.

I guess there are two categories for PCs:

- Insane suicidal weapons freaks who steal our stuff; and

- Insane suicidal weapons freaks who sometimes heal our sick while their friends are stealing our stuff.

[Kelb_Panthera]

There isn't any such term. Adventurer is as close as you get but a fair number of high level, PC classed characters are employed by or are nobility or otherwise powerful people that don't just roam around by there own designs but, instead, are a part of the political machine that runs the political region.

PC class characters are only obviously so if they choose to be for the most part, as well. A powerful magic armor doesn't necessarily look any different from a non-magical, masterwork armor unless its magic is active and/ or flashy. Same goes for the rest of the lights on the christmas tree. There are -some- cases where it's pretty obvious, like a rune-scarred berserker or tattooed monk, because there's some obvious badge of office that's difficult to conceal but I imagine those would be called by the class title rather than something generic.

TL;DR: adventurer is close but there isn't one, really.

[Corneel]

Protagonists.

[Anonymouswizard]

wizards are priests are more often known as that, but might get grouped in with other adventurers.

I'll be honest, I kind of liked how 3.5's Complete Arcane set up the 'standard in-universe terms' for Arcane Casters. The ones I still use when running D&D-like settings are:

• Arcanist: any Arcane caster.
• Mage: any arcane full caster.

To that list I add:

• Magician: anybody who can cast spells.
• Dabbler: any caster without a full spellcasting progression (subject to some wishy washy interpretation).
• Hedge-X: any of the above or a class name, but not formally trained. E.g. Hedge-mage, hedge-cleric, or hedge-dabbler.

In-universe, to a common person everybody's a magician, as you get into the skilled social classes some (but not all) people make the in-universe distinction between arcanists and theurgist, the nobility generally do care about if you're a mage or dabbler, and especially if you're hedge or not. People who care about the distinction between classes are rare and generally is based on occupation (a scholar and general both care for different reasons).


A friend of mine has a setting were mages are formally trained casters, and that's pretty much the only standard terminology. I've seen others where commoners care about and will attempt to find out the difference between a Druid and a Warlock. It varies a ton based on the GM's and group's preference.

Note that in one magic system games I still prefer 'magician' as the word that notes somebody can do magic, I'll then associate other words with traditions or styles.

[Scalenex]

Thank you for the thoughtful replies!

'Dangerous'.

Technically true, but not what I was looking for. I guess I am developing the fluff for my world and I'm tried of writing "PC class" over and over. I wanted something more organic so it could work as an RPG setting or a fiction setting.

In my games they're called people, because classes and levels don't exist in the game world. They're pure game level abstractions designed to facilitate table top play. Now obviously characters have have enough experience and exploits to qualify as a high level character might be nobles or masters or some sort and even famous local or regional people. They may have titles granted by local authorities, but that's about the extent of it.

I'm not sure they are a pure abstraction, given how hit points and saving throws work. They aren't just people who can call down fire, they are people who can withstand blows that would kill a peasant ten times over. They can defeat hordes of fearsome commoner killing house cats.

As mentioned above, 'heroes' or 'adventurers' is probably as good as it gets (yes, better even than 'dangerous' ). From an in-world perspective, these people aren't a group. We don't consider that there is a group of people, who have tremendous skills in firefighting, teaching grade schoolers, road maintenance, and calculating budgets. They're absolutely essential for our societies, but we don't have a concept for the most skilled among these people. They're rather too diverse.

I figure only a small fraction of PC classes travel enough to be adventurers, but it is a nice catchall including both noble heroes, vile villains, and mercenary types.

or the easier one: "murderhobo"

Obviously you sat in on some of my group's games...

Whatever they want to be called, do you want to risk angering them?

In all seriousness, that's no equivalent to Shadowrun with an explicit in universe name for PC types. Adventurer, hero, mercenary, that crazy dude, Geoff, Sir Geoffrey of Reddragonsland, oh no not him again, gullible idiots, elites, problem solvers, or many more completely valid options.

Shadowrun is unique in that for the most part, no matter how advanced your Shadowrunner character gets, they are still mortal. A bullet in the back of the head will kill them. The experienced characters just are better at dodging and have top of the line helmets, but in a mortality sense they are on the same playing field as "normals." Again, hit points and saving throws change the scheme.

I'll be honest, I kind of liked how 3.5's Complete Arcane set up the 'standard in-universe terms' for Arcane Casters. The ones I still use when running D&D-like settings are:

• Arcanist: any Arcane caster.
• Mage: any arcane full caster.

To that list I add:

• Magician: anybody who can cast spells.
• Dabbler: any caster without a full spellcasting progression (subject to some wishy washy interpretation).
• Hedge-X: any of the above or a class name, but not formally trained. E.g. Hedge-mage, hedge-cleric, or hedge-dabbler.

In-universe, to a common person everybody's a magician, as you get into the skilled social classes some (but not all) people make the in-universe distinction between arcanists and theurgist, the nobility generally do care about if you're a mage or dabbler, and especially if you're hedge or not. People who care about the distinction between classes are rare and generally is based on occupation (a scholar and general both care for different reasons).


A friend of mine has a setting were mages are formally trained casters, and that's pretty much the only standard terminology. I've seen others where commoners care about and will attempt to find out the difference between a Druid and a Warlock. It varies a ton based on the GM's and group's preference.

Note that in one magic system games I still prefer 'magician' as the word that notes somebody can do magic, I'll then associate other words with traditions or styles.

I like these terms, but I was hoping for a more inclusive term that includes the poor souls with no spellcasting abilities or paltry magic like rangers.


I kind of would like to emphasize the differences between PC classes and normals. I am creating a setting literally starting from the dawn of time with the goal of covering as many plot holes and inconsistencies as possible. If the laws of physics or biology say something is ridiculous, I say "we'll this world has DIFFERENT science."

Eons ago, the ruling pantheon of the gods had to defeat their progenitor god to wrest control of the universe. They brought thousands of mortals allies as cannon fodder. The tiny number that survived absorbed enough of the dead god's power to grow in power becoming the first dragons. The battle also imprinted on all of creation so for all time, beings who overcome dangerous struggles can gain greatly in power. Thus "leveling" is a universal law.

So based on this I'm thinking of calling PC class holders "dragon touched" but I was hoping for something less pretentious sounding. Maybe a derogatory nickname to go along with it.

[SirGraystone]

Mostly they would be call adventurers or by their classes. Being called heroes depend of their actions more then their levels, and where they are. A level 4 character may be an hero in his town but barely know in the next.

To be know as heroes you need to have done good thing, and the peoples need to know you have done them, good PR help. Killing a dragon is good, but bringing its head back and hang it in the town square is even better for a reputation.

[Anonymouswizard]

Shadowrun is unique in that for the most part, no matter how advanced your Shadowrunner character gets, they are still mortal. A bullet in the back of the head will kill them. The experienced characters just are better at dodging and have top of the line helmets, but in a mortality sense they are on the same playing field as "normals." Again, hit points and saving throws change the scheme.

GURPS, Traveller, Keltia, Eclipse Phase (with the exception that you can be restored from backup), Basic Roleplaying. if we go for 'pulp hero tough' then the only games I own where powerful characters aren't mortal are D&D, M&M, Lamentations of the Flame Princess (good luck hitting high levels), and Fantasy AGE. Almost any point-buy game won't have characters automatically get less mortal as they advance.

So no, Shadowrun is not unique, in many ways it's close to the standard. I've played games with powerful characters who are significantly squishier than your average runner (also, Trolls change that 'bullet in the back of the head' bit, they have a decent chance of surviving lighter fire even without a helmet).

I like these terms, but I was hoping for a more inclusive term that includes the poor souls with no spellcasting abilities or paltry magic like rangers.

I was tengenting, going on the 'what casters are referred to' bit that I quoted.

[solidork]

Paragon
Exemplar
Champion

'Paragon class' scans well and should work unless this is 3.5 and that already means the racial classes.

[Honest Tiefling]

The King
The Empress
The Hierarch
Lord/Lady
That weird old man
My neighbor Jane, who fought in the wars
Bob
Mommy
That bastard who wanted the mountains to fly so now my crops don't get any sunlight
Bah! Children these days!

In short, they are people and referred to or addressed by name, occupation, reputation or status, not some weird out of game concept like 'high level'.

Same. Why would highly competent people, some of which are evil, be called heroes? Why would the general or the court mage be called an adventurer? They are called what they are in the setting, because we don't call Olympic level athletes and recognized geniuses and modern artists all 'heroes' in the real world.

[The Glyphstone]

In more seriousness, I think the people who are saying 'nothing' are the best answer, as unhelpful as it might be to your fluff-writing. low-level PC class holders are indistinguishable from NPC class holders for the most part; a Warrior 1 and a Fighter 1 are a single bonus feat apart, an Adept and a Cleric are differentiated solely by their ability to channel energy. Medium to high-level PC class holders are going to be so rare that they will be known by name, even to relative strangers; you don't need a word to describe people who only appear a few times in each generation.

If you want an out-of-universe term to collectively refer to them, use 'adventurers', since PC classes are themselves an out-of-universe construct. But in-universe, you have Achilles and Hector and Odysseus as specific named individuals, they're not 'divine champions' or even 'heroes' as a collective grouping because each of them is famous in his own right as a person, and there are so few of them that they stand out from the un-leveled masses all the more.

[Corneel]

Heroes, when used in the original classical Greek sense, still seems the most appropriate. Both dickish gloryhound Achilles and upright family-man Hector were considered heroes. As were sly Odysseus and motherloving Oedipus, heck, Agamemnon was considered a hero.

If you want a more contemporaneous term, you might want to use "celebrity", or "famed". So high level characters might simply collectively known as "The Famed", and a single one of them as "a Famed".

And if you're not against neologisms there's one I can coin: the Befated.

[Scalenex]

In more seriousness, I think the people who are saying 'nothing' are the best answer, as unhelpful as it might be to your fluff-writing. low-level PC class holders are indistinguishable from NPC class holders for the most part; a Warrior 1 and a Fighter 1 are a single bonus feat apart, an Adept and a Cleric are differentiated solely by their ability to channel energy. Medium to high-level PC class holders are going to be so rare that they will be known by name, even to relative strangers; you don't need a word to describe people who only appear a few times in each generation.

If you want an out-of-universe term to collectively refer to them, use 'adventurers', since PC classes are themselves an out-of-universe construct. But in-universe, you have Achilles and Hector and Odysseus as specific named individuals, they're not 'divine champions' or even 'heroes' as a collective grouping because each of them is famous in his own right as a person, and there are so few of them that they stand out from the un-leveled masses all the more.

I will concede that "nothing" is a reasonable title much of the time, though not all of the time.

Heroes, when used in the original classical Greek sense, still seems the most appropriate. Both dickish gloryhound Achilles and upright family-man Hector were considered heroes. As were sly Odysseus and motherloving Oedipus, heck, Agamemnon was considered a hero.

If you want a more contemporaneous term, you might want to use "celebrity", or "famed". So high level characters might simply collectively known as "The Famed", and a single one of them as "a Famed".

And if you're not against neologisms there's one I can coin: the Befated.

This is the answer I was looking for. Thank you.

I can even expand on this and use the nickname "Fate Seeker" for a low level adventurer who is open about his/her ambitions.

And "Befated" does a pretty good job driving home "glory and riches or a horrible premature death."

[Spore]

AD&D has class titles according to level: http://www.pvv.ntnu.no/~leirbakk/rpg...its/level.html

I really miss the 'medium' rank of cleric (or magic user?) though for the small medium pun.

[Anonymouswizard]

I really miss the 'medium' rank of cleric (or magic user?) though for the small medium pun.

Go on the run from the law. Be a small medium at large.

[2D8HP]

Lords and Ladies

*spits*

Keep yer 'ead low, don't draw their attention, and we can outlast the bastards.

Either that or "Pitchfork bait monsters"

[Ignimortis]

By their title or family name or first name if familiar enough. A god-blessed medic of the City Watch is not "the prophet", or even called a "cleric" - he has cleric as a class (not the only class), but his friends call him Gervan, and his captain calls him Corporal.

Very few titles are indicative of actual prowess, too - the only Archmage of the northern kingdom is actually Aristocrat 2/Wizard 5 who actually has a Skill Focus feat, for instance, and there are similar or more powerful spellcasters in the world, but none of them are archmages - even though their capacity for magic is higher, their capacity for being a magic consultant for the noble class or an educator in a magic academy is lower, due to not being educated enough/esteemed enough/willing to stay in one place enough. Meanwhile, the not-really-powerful archmage has all the resources and influence he could ever want.

There are exceptions, of course - for example, Royal Armsmaster of the same kingdom is a rather optimized Warblade 9, for instance, but that also indicates that he's quite out of touch with most things that's not about combat and arms, and usually spends his days practicing, nursing a hangover, or dancing around someone who actually had the guts to try and challenge him. He's also respected, but only as a dangerous fighter, and his actual influence is rather low, even considering the northern kingdom's focus on martial honor and skill.

If an NPC has only PC class levels, then they're probably an adventurer (or something equally dangerous, like a pitfighter) or some sort of an elite.

TL;DR: Classes are tools, not an identity.

[GungHo]

It really comes down to how "genre savvy" your world is. On some worlds, a villager makes no distinction between any heavily armed person walking through their midst beyond "run away from this person" and any spell caster is capable re-igniting volcanoes. On others, they can look at you and know if you're a level 10 wizard, a level 5 sorcerer, a level 7 witch, or a level 3 shaman.

[Scalenex]

'Dangerous'.

Go on the run from the law. Be a small medium at large.

By their title or family name or first name if familiar enough. A god-blessed medic of the City Watch is not "the prophet", or even called a "cleric" - he has cleric as a class (not the only class), but his friends call him Gervan, and his captain calls him Corporal.

Reasonable, but each of these examples require a degree of familiarity.

Very few titles are indicative of actual prowess, too -

I would agree with this entirely if you changed "very few" to "relatively few." I think the true top tier would be known as the true paragons of their class. The best fighter in region and the best fighter in the world would probably be known. Same with the best wizard, etc.

If an NPC has only PC class levels, then they're probably an adventurer (or something equally dangerous, like a pitfighter) or some sort of an elite.

A player character will probably keep adventuring till the character dies or the chronicle gets stale. I imagine most NPC adventurers would adventurer until they reach their main goals then retire and by retire I don't mean quit being what they are and doing what they do, they would just stop adventuring. A wizard would quietly sell potions and take on apprentices, a fighter might be captain of the gods or serve as a military officer, a cleric would take a position in a busy temple, etc.

TL;DR: Classes are tools, not an identity.

To my friends and family. I am unique multifaceted person. When I go to a store or restaurant I am just a customer. To my boss, I am a just a worker. When a stranger wants to know the basics about me, they will ask "What do you do?" 90% of the people we meet are only concerned with what we can do which in their minds defines what we are. Few people truly care who who we are.

It really comes down to how "genre savvy" your world is. On some worlds, a villager makes no distinction between any heavily armed person walking through their midst beyond "run away from this person" and any spell caster is capable re-igniting volcanoes. On others, they can look at you and know if you're a level 10 wizard, a level 5 sorcerer, a level 7 witch, or a level 3 shaman.

I guess if the player characters are about the only adventurers in the world, no one would be very genre savvy, but if you can go to a major city and buy wands of Restoration and Cure Light Wounds, sell your unwanted magical items for half price, and place custom orders for a Belt of Charisma +6, there is probably enough of an adventurer culture that the general population would be pretty genre savvy. I'm guessing stories of adventurers would be popular and bored commoners (and nobles) would want to press the storytellers and minstrels for every detail they can get about dashing heroes and despicable villains.

That said I doubt they can spot a 10th level wizard from a 5th level sorcerer by looking, but I bet at least someone in most villages can say, "he doesn't carry a spell book, that's a sorcerer not a wizard!" "He is being followed by a wolf and has a bunch of metal on him, he is a ranger not a druid."