After a great deal of thinking, I’ve come to the conclusion that perhaps it would be good for someone with a decent amount of experience to critique the present, more or less accepted, guild hierarchy format. I have, obviously, taken it upon myself to do so. I find this to be one of the rare instances where my natural bent for criticism is able to actually be helpful. Hopefully, after reading this guild leaders will look carefully over their own guild’s hierarchy, and future guild leaders will think carefully before giving their guild the usual hierarchy system.
Sections:
The hierarchy system used in most guilds is appalling in its lack of originality.  It is true that several guilds have attempted to add color to their hierarchies by splitting it into three or more different sections(usually graced by drab terms such as “ways” or “paths”). However, I find that most of these attempts are poorly executed. Often, one of the sections will have almost no members, due to the fact that in light of the guild’s goals, it’s almost entirely superfluous. An extreme example of this would be a swordfighter’s guild having a wizard section, or vise verse.
Am I saying that a guild should not have different sections? No, indeed! I find sections a wonderful addition to many guilds that use them. It is, however, important to remember that they can be your worst enemy if used improperly. Too many guilds have burdened their hierarchies with unnecessary sections which give them the image of being clumsy and cumbersome.
Rigidity:
Another interesting problem with guild hierarchies is their rigidity. Many, in fact, most guild hierarchies are drawn up with the idea of each position being filled. No one gives any thought to the fact that for a good period of time, many of the positions are unlikely to be filled. What happens then, when the “guild librarian” is gone? No one is allowed to add to the guild library. Heaven forbid the “general” not turn up. We’d have to postpone the war till another day. What happens if the website manager of your guild hasn’t been around for three months? Do you go without any updates to your website?
As you can see, it’s asking for problems to have a rigid hierarchy. Unfortunately, rather than look into changing the actual hierarchy, most guild leaders simply try to fill in the gaps. This usually entails someone being saddled with a job that they have neither the desire nor skill to do. Worse yet, often some fool is promoted to a rank far above his ability to fulfill, rather than let the position go empty.
Is there a perfect solution? No, I don’t believe so. After all, we are people and it is simply a game. People will go missing, and others will get stuck with jobs they’re not good at, no matter how you look at it. But let me suggest that if the hierarchy was designed with these failures in mind, it would enable the substitutions to take place in a much more organized and practical manner.
Although I’m loath to give any direct advice, I can at least say that when a position in a guild is created, it is important to keep in mind that it may not always be able to be filled. Perhaps there should be a substitute of the same rank to fulfill the duties until a suitable candidate can be found. Perhaps the holder of the position should be required to teach the more basic and necessary of his duties to someone of his rank, or even divide his duties into several areas and teach each area to an underling in case of his untimely absence. The ways of doing this are numerous, and rather than give up my own personal formula for success, I’d like to encourage you to think your way through it. Although at first glance it seems rather bureaucratic at first, but let me assure you, if well thought through, it can be both elegant and practical.
Guild Leaders:
One of my pet peeves is guild leaders who think that simply because they started a guild, that should entitle them to be the grand exalted dictator of it. Foolish. It is true, in most cases, that the one who started the guild deserves to be rewarded for his efforts, and most likely he will understand the guild’s purpose and goals better than the others. This does not, however, mean that he is the most intelligent, or most capable in his guild.
I would think it would be considered rather old fashioned for the guild leader to be the founder, and not necessarily the most capable member of the guild. It’s simply foolish. If you start a guild simply to boost your ego by being the guild leader, then you can expect ruin. Although the whole “king” concept might be attractive to the mindless masses, if you’re interested in luring any truly intelligent individuals to your guild, then you should realize that they won’t relish being lorded over by some half-wit.
Once again, I’m loath to give direct instructions as to how your hierarchy should be formed, but allow me to point that the good old idea of a council is not to be scorned. There are of course many ways to make it original and practical, but I’ll leave that to the guild leaders themselves. There are also ways to have a single leader and yet make sure that he is kept in check by a group of elders, or even that he can be replaced. However, I would stay away from democratic-type voting systems. They tend to be rather messy and impractical in the guild context.
Lower ranks:
Something I’ve noticed in guilds in PS is that very little thought goes into the lower ranks. The higher ranks have their privileges, mostly fame and the ability to command the masses in the lower ranks, but the lower ranks are almost pointless. You can almost see the guild creators thinking, “Ok, we’ve gotta have nine ranks. Well, the top three will be such-and-such, and then we’ll have a “testing” rank at the very bottom. What to do with the other five ranks… hmm… Well, let’s just come up with really cool names so that way all the people down there feel like they’ve achieved something. I mean, we can’t have everybody in the top three ranks, so…” You get the point.
When you create your guild, you must create it with the understanding that not everybody in it can be a warlord, archmage, loremaster, Elite Guardian, or whatever. What has your guild to offer, besides prestige? If you have no privileges to offer your lower ranking members, then what incentive will they have to join if all the top positions are taken?  Personally, I think there are far too many guild members who have been promoted to the top simply because it didn’t seem fair to keep them in a low rank that was essentially useless. If a rank is useless, either chuck it out, or make it useful. Give each rank certain privileges and responsibilities. This way a person could, theoretically, be perfectly happy in a lower rank, doing their job. Don’t make lower ranks so that their only responsibility is to obey every command of a higher rank and their only privileges is that they’re one step closer to a meaningful rank at the top.
Get real. Be brutal with yourself. If your guild really has nothing to offer except the chance to become a high-ranking officer in a guild, then should your guild even exist? Enough said.
And a few parting words of wisdom about guild histories. I would like to point out how uninspiring so many guild histories are. Let’s be frank for a few minutes. The vast majority of guild histories are stories about how one or two people were in the midst of some adventure when they saw a vision, or were overwhelmed with the desire to start a guild due to… etc. You get my point. Now, although I daresay many of them make a good read, they are far from inspiring as a guild history.
I would strongly suggest coming up with a guild story that gives the guild a greater scope than just the fond desire of one or two people. This may sound like an unreasonable suggestion, but if you think about it, it’s really quite up to you to create your guild’s history, it’s not like there actually was one.
Well, that is about all I have for now. Please feel free to discuss what I have said. If I hear any suggestions or additions to what I have said that I feel are good then I’ll add them to this original post.
P.S. My apologies to those of you who feel that this is not quite up to my usual standards. I have been gone a year, after all.
