Okay. So the trailer isn't much to go on, but two things are painfully obvious.

1) There is a menace returning to the land. If it is not pure evil, then it's intentions or motives are certainly incompatible with "the good guys." No world peace summits, it's kill or be killed.

2) There is only one hero who could possibly stop said Evil (or simply antagonists)

Now, the first one is...forgivable? At least they didn't use daedra again. But I would have still preferred the civil war in Skyrim to be the main focus. (assuming that's what's meant by "sons of Skyrim spill their own blood." But the inherently evil enemy is dragged on way too much in the fantasy genre. Yes, it's a staple, but so many people do it that it no longer is an homage, but simply cliche. The Orcs of Middle Earth, the Darkspawn of Dragon Age, the Daedra of Oblivion. I want to see more perspective. Was Napolean evil? How about George Washington? Give me some moral ambiguity here.

The second, however, is tenuous. Heroes are real. Throughout history, the outcome of wars, nations, and entire populations of people have depended on the shoulders of one or a small group of men. But, there was no ancient scroll that prophesied Churchill and FDR beating Hitler. It just happened. So, while I admit that the player character will almost always have to be the hero (unless he ignores the main quest) I would prefer he not be "destined." Maybe that's contrary to the Elder Scrolls mythos, where even the future is written down. Certainly, the title "Dragon-Born" implies fate, as he was "born" to fill this role. It would please me greatly though, if there was no prophesy, and your character simply earned that name in one of the early main missions, where after being swallowed by a dragon, he/she cuts himself free, thus becoming "dragon born."

Well....

1) It wouldn't be so much awesome if you don't save the world. saving a province (or a race, or a clan) is not that influential

2) Methinks you're a sidekick again. I mean, the mural implied men so much I'd call it sixist

I'm not saying you can't save the world. Just the idea that only you, not just happens to be. And history is sixist. So anything given a medieval context will especially deal with "men." Especially because it's undramatic to say "he or she will be the hero and he or she will save us..."

pretty much every fantasy or sci-fi story is cliche. but just because the story is cliche doesn't mean that its bad.

http://www.cold-moon.com/images/Motivators/Alignments/GoodVsEvil.jpg

What would you expect? A linear story requires linear characters. Or are you saying you want it to be like Shivering Isles, where everyone can try but only you are brave enough to actually try?

So you're saying it's just like Morrowind?

I guess I would expect a departure from the theme, if only because it is very similar to the last to ES titles, although I suppose that is a theme that is intentionally kept. However, I would hope there is a larger element of chance, rather than fate, determine the roll of the player. I guess I should appreciate that whoever I am, I can be any race, class, etc.

Yeah, well I'm sure that ancient nordic prophets were not very progressive.

I would like to point out to Keltic Viking that most people don't go to epic fantasy for political intrigue.

Valid points,... but I suppose the question comes down to... who would want to play a character who doesn't end up the hero, reluctant or otherwise? Let's face it, we all want to be heroe's in some fashion or another, it's only upon our completion of the "hero's trial" that we look to how things would be like if we weren't

Well considering the political intrigue in America seems like epic fantasy (they almost elected a witch in Delaware) I figured it was a proper foil.

And I'm not saying the main character should not be the Hero, I just don't the he shouldn't always be predestined.

True, but Daggerfall and Morrowind had fairly well developed political machinations. Intrigue may not necessarily belong in epic fantasy in general, but it certainly belongs in the Elder Scrolls.

It was almost entirely unrelated to the main plot in Morrowind though.

But does it belong in Skyrim?

I would think that, done right, a main quest set in Skyrim ought to have a strong Beowulf vibe to it. Some politics is acceptable, but the focus ought to be on massive battles with epic monsters, I would think.

I don't know, though. Even the Tribunal gods had their own thing goin on. And the Duke of Morrowind was up in some shizz too, I think.

But really. You know what effect the Dragon born is going to have on ESVI? The same effect that the "Champion of the Empire" has had on Skyrim. Zero.
Whereas, let's say the Fighter's guild, working with the Comonna Tong, had kicked the Thieves guild out of Morrowind. That could have changed how Oblivion played, politically. Maybe the local Thieves guild doesn't like Dark Elves. Maybe the Fighter's guild has ties to smuggling, through the Commona Tong.

@Mirander...I would never deny that any game based in Skyrim has to be rooted in Beowulf. It's a classic. Ultimate source material. And yet...Bloodmoon already did do the Beowulf theme. And the trailer for Skyrim already had me thinking of this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rDlSmu1gpcM

IMO you've missed a very important piece of Elder Scrolls tradition, here -- in fact, one of the primary things that draws me into this world and keeps me coming back.

It's us vs. them, petty and morally ambiguous, all the way down and all the way up. In the vast majority of cases, both sides are equally righteous and equally atrocious. But this isn't just some dadaist observation on futility. Us vs. them is the engine of reality in the Elder Scrolls universe, stemming from Anu and Sithis, and all the lower orders of creation inevitably reflect it.

Meanwhile, every single narrator in the Elder Scrolls is painfully unreliable. The histories you hear, the books you read, are all provided by zealots and (frequently self-believing) propagandists, and of course the other guy is Evil.

We may well be on the same page so far, but there's one more ingredient.

So there's this clean, black-and-white layer on the surface but -- here's the genius -- it's not important to the story for you to scratch below that layer and see how terribly convoluted it is just beneath. You can play through as a righteous believer and have your classic hero story, and you get all the same rewards as the one who begins to doubt, looks deeper, discovers terrible truths but eventually has to do unto others before they do unto him.

Neither experience is pushed on you (...okay, the former a bit more so in Oblivion), but either can be discovered and enjoyed. That's what I hope to see again in Skyrim.

The teaser said they were having a civil war, there can be nothing but politics if they're going to band together out of a civil war to resist these dragons.

although you may serve a point but the main point of the elder scrolls series is that they're world and future has already been determined by the writings within these "Elder Scrolls" but i also do not believe that the story should be a different application of moral standing of the philosophy between real world characters and their own uprising...it should continue this predicted plot as it serves what the universe of the Elder Scrolls serves

I liked how Morrowind did it. Started off as low fantasy, but stuff got more epic if you chose to follow the main story. The interplay between the great Houses was very interesting, then you wound up with the world-threatening menace of Dagoth Ur. I suppose Oblivion was like that too, but the only threat was Dagon and the daedra. Not much else of interest going down. No Mannimarco or anything (well, a joke of one)

I wonder how much the lore in TES V: Skyrim will be influenced by Norse mythology.

probably a fair bit.
but then all fantasy is influence by real world history so thats not really anything new

I believe, and hope, that the Dragons wont just be mindless killing-machines but actually sentient beings with a grey goal to fulfill.

i suspect that a dragon won't appear until the very end if at all. the MQ could revolve around a faction trying to awaken a dragon or something

Methinks they're aping Dragon Age. Which itself was threadbare and utterly unoriginal, despite it's strengths.

Does anyone know who the writers have been for the past ES games?

And if it hasn't changed hands, seeing as how we know so much about the lore already, it's possibly a good assumption that everything we are guessing could be in the area of truth.

Unless the writers are new then expect something totally out of the ordinary.