The difference between the traditional types of spellcasters is minimal, although there can be specific boundaries defined in specific games (e.g. one can cast thing that another can't, they use different kinds of power or power with different sources, etc.). There's no real consensus on a division, though, even among layman's definitions: Both "wizard" and "warlock" are sometimes referred to as the male form of "witch," but it's commonly assumed that the pairing of the two terms was invented for convenience and not part of the original definitions. I find three possible etymologies for "warlock": oathbreaker (Scottish), caller of spirits (Norse), and man of the logs (Old English). (The last of those supposedly refers to the sticks used for reading runes, and became an insult used by Christians to speak of Pagans.) "Wizard" comes from the Middle English for wise and, besides cross-referencing the other terms, is used to refer to someone who's good at something. All the reliable references I can find to the word "sorcerer" either refer directly to one of the above definitions or define it only as a practitioner of magic (or both). The root seems to be in the Latin for fortune (i.e. fate, not wealth), via French and Middle English. "Mage" is the only one that's really specific; it comes from "magus" (more specifically, from the plural "magi"), which can be traced back to Old Persian. That's used now in the same way as the above terms, but originally referred to a priest of Zoroastrianism (also called Mazdaism for its central deity). The three wise men of the New Testament were magi in this sense. Thanks for asking the question; that was some interesting research. I hope it helps.