the role of a captain would essentially be that of a 2nd character to go with the 1st character as a noble. of same player.
you don't see npc captains not turning up for a battle or end up in a (non) battle on his own.....
"hey.. i blew my hours training whilst waiting for the orders whilst my captain didn't.. and he's turned up against a billion men on his own"
or...
"some dipstick blocked the road and my captain got there on his own..."
now.. if you were to ban players with captain/noble serving each other.... not unlike advy/nobles can't trade each other stuff... how many would take it up? there might be the oddball or two who paired their capt/noble off, much like 2 players crossing trading their items... won't be common.
expansion of npc captain has more legs than this really...
When you get a character as a duke of a rich city, do you make another character to be his knight for mutual benefit? Some do, some don't. And I do think this is rather relevant, because you were stating in the first sentence that a noble will make a captain for his own unit. While doubtless some probably would, I don't think that, with character limits the way they are on continents (Count the captain as part of the 2 per continent limit), many people would really limit themselves to one character and a toady. But hey, some would because of the benefits. That's completely their choice, much like it is one's choice to double up in a realm and swear an oath to your own rich family member duke.
As for the captain not making it to the battle, just because our class changes doesn't mean IR suddenly evaporates. Adventurers are protected by IR too, so it's a blanket over all players, regardless of class. Now, certainly one could boot a captain who was consistently being late and useless. After all, what are you paying him for if not to be a useful participant in your battles? If they can't keep up, they best not serve you. If you're that worried about your captain being with you all the time, make this clear. Even now, we can protest out council members who consistently don't do their jobs. It's one thing to be inactive, but another to be derelict of duties. If you aren't going to be responsible in the position, one in which you may be depended upon by other players, then that is discourteous. If you know you can't maintain the activity required of a class or position, then don't play it. You have the right to play any class, yes, but you don't have the right to have any positions.
That means in the event of a really useless captain, then tell your realmmates about him. You're a noble, that's how nobles work, by spreading rumors/facts/other words. Tell everyone "Hey, Captain Lazy never marches on time, and never gets to battles until at least three days later. I would advise anyone against offering a place for him in your unit and to seek a more reliable captain like Captain Reliable."
Like, common sense? You wouldn't elect a judge that does nothing but click "play" once every week and doesn't ban, fine, or do anything, would you? Likewise, don't give a captain any pay if he can't keep up with the unit, which in turn must keep up with the army. Chain of command, simple as that. IR doesn't protect ineptitude or irresponsibility. Hopefully the lack of income would provide incentive for a lackadaisical captain to get his act together and actually be a part of the well-oiled war machine the class would be designed to be. If not, then maybe the player will reconsider whether he really wants to play a captain. Everyone gets to choose his or her class. That does not mean that every class must appeal to everyone.
