In Chaucer's "Wife of Bath's Tale" the knight returns to the court, after a year and a day, to face possible execution. This seems poorly considered. Why did he just go off and recreate himself elsewhere?
It's fiction, so the characters are Chaucer's to behave as he chooses. Chaucer has the knight act in conformity with the customs of Medieval times: the knight, being sworn to honour and obey his king, would not consider absconding. Coming from a minority class, it would be next to impossible for him to hide without abandoning his profession and way of life. He could not easily retrain to do another job. And it would be unlikely that he would want to give up his privileges.
But there was plenty foolish about knights... https://youtu.be/dhRUe-gz690
This post was edited by Benedict Arnold at November 22, 2016 5:54 AM MST
I think that probably had something to do with obligation. However, the Knight - like the fool - had become synonymous in satirical terms with grandiosity and pompsity. Aristophanes, the Ancient Greek satirical comedian, scripted a whole play on the subject. Wasn't Don Quixote a knight?