Perhaps, but why not use the one handed weapon with two hands?

Unless it's a dagger or something, in which case you should be pretty gimped anyway.

It's like taking Block as a major skill in Morrowind, using a one-handed weapon, and not using a shield.

if you have a sword in your right hand and your left is empty wouldn't the left hand be un-armed and be able to do un-armed attacks, (punches, ect) with the duel wield system?

Because it looks cooler in one hand and you can use your free hand to help maintain balance. You could also use two hands for power attacks. Elder Scrolls is a role playing game and some people would eventually like to play the role of a duelist, sacrificing strength and protection for agility and precision.

Actually, I think this gives single weapons a new advantage. Its the same as choosing between a shortsword and longsword. If you have one weapon you will probably strike faster, or even stronger since you only have to focus on one weapon. But if you have two blades, you can hit them more often, so even though it may be slower or each blade may do slightly less damage, the fact that you hit them twice as much hurts them more overall.

A one-handed perk tied to whatever becomes of the unarmored skill?

If the idea is that you are more agile without a shield or second weapon, seems like it's an unarmored (or lightly armored) perk opportunity.

End up with the Dashing Rogue style build.

Exactly, it looks cool. You're right it's a roleplaying game, you're allowed to do anything you like, including things like imagining some random steel sword is your family ancestral sword and only use that for the rest of the game. Doesn't mean it should be as effective as using the best weapon available.

I'm sure it will be possible and somewhat viable to use a one handed weapon and nothing else, but I think it probably will be weaker than using something in the other hand, as it should be.

Duelists are good in duels, where your opponent has to follow the same rules you do.

I accept that using one weapon would be weaker than using a weapon with a shield. I just think that there should be a bonus specific to using a single weapon, the bonus wouldn't make up for the lack of a shield or extra weapon but it would be something so that I'm not gimped completely. A swordsman without a shield will be more agile than a soldier with a shield, the shield guy will still have the overall advantage but the swordsman will still be able to take advantage of that agility.

use the empty hand to punch? doesn't mean its worthless becuase nothing is assigned to it

I agree with this. There are advantages to using only one one-handed weapon, of course someone armed with a shield will have the advantage in direct combat, but there are many reasons not to use a shield. Same with dual wielding, no soldier would have any reason to fight with two swords, but an adventurer could make good use of it.

Even if you do like playing with a one-handed weapon (like I myself do) everyone could use a restoration spell in the other, or a shield. knowing how duel-wielding weapons are usually, I doubt it'll be "gimped"

What just think would make sense is that through perks/sklls, ANY combination should have it's advantages and disadvantages.

Using a single one-handed weapon should make you more agile, able to dodge/parry better, etc. It shouldn't make you weaker/less then someone who uses another weapon, more so just "different" but still viable.

I just don't like using dual weapons (it looks goofy and feels out of place to me) and using shields doesn't work well since it's usually "biggest shield = best" and that is just absurd and totally wrong on how actual shields work.

So the best thing I like to use is one-handed weapons. However feeling gimped/weaker compared to every other choice (Two handers, sword and shield, dual wield, etc) just svcks.

I think there should be perks/traits for every single style a player can choose and all should be viable in their own way with advantages over another (and disadvantages to balance it) but not with one that is obviously underpowered/weaker then every other.

Realistically, you will never be in this situation, unless one is hardcoe role-playing they will at least have a starter self-heal in the other.

On top of that, using two weapons should drain your fatigue twice as fast, so you get tired a lot faster. There, balanced.

well from what ive read, if u only use one sword and nothin else then u will prob have ur fist as the 2nd weapon. so ur better off havin a spell or shield in the off hand

unless u get good at the hand to hand skill and get some good perks with ur fist

I'm pretty sure it will be viable.
Whether you like it or not, TES will get easier/simpler/whatever with each release.
If anything it will be more viable than it was in Oblivion.

FO3/NV also had ones like that i think.