As I'm sure some of you are already aware, I'm a big fan of the larger picture. In this case, we may be better served by simply linking the newbie faq on the darkemud web page main site to the help files in the mud folder so they update automatically. Then it becomes a matter of what appears in the help files reflecting accurately what we wish to portray.

For instance, the monk guild doesn't have a help file at all if you go by the web site's listing. Sylphs aren't an elemental race, or any race for that matter, and there's simply no mention of what I assume are roleplay races like shadowcat. I propose that the web page update as entire directories of mud information rather than wait to be synchronized by hand.

Further, if we're unhappy with the state of affairs when it comes to how each guild is displayed, we should be looking into why:

1) Is the flavor description of a guild's purpose too nebulous? - take for example, the web help listed for cleric of risla (I won't reproduce it, but I will reference it, so you can find the full file here: http://www.darkemud.com/darke/text/guilds/cleric-of-risla.html), which apart from having a number of misspellings (most notably - "damageing" and "ressurrection") also states that the Cleric's primary examples are none (could we be using Friar Tuck, Vampire Hunter D, Van Helsing, or the Brothers Grimm?), and that the primary spells they work in are "damageing" and "ressurrection" (when in actuality there are two, maybe three resurrection type spells if you include deus ex machina; damage spells are similiarly limited in scope, while healing spells include the harm-style spells).

b) Are new Darkemudders unable to decide if they'd like a guild based on the flavor in the help file? - for instance, take the thief's guild help file (http://www.darkemud.com/darke/text/guilds/thief.html and yes, I know the guild as a whole is a contentious topic, but stick with me here) which is fully misleading. A thief is no less likely to wear heavy armour than a fighter, simply because there is no penalty to dexterity based skills or stats. *hmm a topic for another thread maybe?* If I were to be interested in a sneaky, purse-slitting, hide-in-shadows-while-tracking someone type I'd be disappointed in the rogue's guild, as it's ironically (read as: vagabond! Sucka!) referred to in the very obviously outdated help file.

3) Are the iconic sets of what it means to be a/an -insert guildname here- being adequately portrayed? This question basically includes both previous questions, and could be alleviated with the simple addition of a new line: "Iconic Traits". Here is where we'd tell people that Necromancers create the (mighty?) Dracolich - an undead dragon of epic proportions. Where an enchanter's True spells would be described - bringing a piece of weaponry or armour from mere greatness to truely legendary ability. Where the Chaotic Lord's Demon Lords would be touted as the pinnacle of wretched doom, and the like.

Perhaps a list of every skill and spell available at every level would be less than exciting in discovering a new guild. I for one think it would be, but I also think there is an extremely large space for design and upgrade in terms of information. Even making the help files from some guild-specific skills or spells available to non-guildmembers would not be going too far (presuming that the help files are for widely recognized skills - forge weapon, for instance, or enchanter mark, or whatever makes a guild more interesting without selling it up the river)