Generals and life expectancy

[Mr_PeaCH]

Aside from the obvious (being a General in combat runs a risk of injury or death) does being a General have any adverse affect on the character's health or life expectancy?

When I make someone a General I generally leave them there. If the General adds XP every turn this is a good reason to keep them there. But otherwise, do people release their Generals from service if not actively campaigning? When I get that message that General So-And-So died in the field it's very sad and I can't help but think they might have lived longer if I'd allowed them to return to their loved ones and spend more time at home.

But seriously, am I reaching here or does anybody else think it's detrimental to life expectancy for a character to remain a General?

 

[PiR]

I've never noticed such impact, but let's see what the experts say!

 

[Dale]

If you release someone from a role, they get pissy about it. So best to keep them assigned.

There's no adverse penalty for life expectancy, but generals can be killed in battle.

 

[nolegskitten]

generals leading a unit can be affected by events when that unit is attacked. These events have a fairly low probability. "affected" in these case means they can become scarred (positive, that's +1 courage), or crippled (
-1 fatigue), wounded (20% chance of death), severely wounded (70% chance of death), killed, or blinded (can't be assigned as general or governor).
Apart from becoming scarred, all of these suck. The probability of any of these occurring is low enough that it shouldn't prevent you from assigning generals, but I couldn't give you the exact numbers without checking.

TLDR : assign generals