PokéBase - Pokémon Q&A
1 vote

So as an example, Noivern is Flying/Dragon, but Chairizard is Fire/Flying.
In this example the part flying on each Pokemon, is switched to the other side, so Noivern is Flying then Dragon, and Chairizard is Fire then flying. How do they decide which type comes first?

It's random lol.
Or, maybe the Primary typing is supposed to be the typing that suits the Pokémon more. Since a bat is more a flying thing, but also looks like a dragon, so it's Noivern (Ooh, these wings are too big). Charizard's pre-evolutions start with fire, and is mostly a fire dragon like thing, with wings. So that means Fire/Flying type, logic yay!

1 Answer

2 votes
Best answer

I think half of this answer does just have to be “Game Freak logic,” but as SeeYaLater pointed out, for the most part, the Pokémon’s primary typing is the one that suits it the best. Perhaps the best examples of this are Sableye and Spiritomb. Spiritomb has an amorphous main body, like a ghost, so it’s ghost/dark, while Sableye is a creature that lurks in dark caves, making it a dark/ghost type.
Of course there are some exceptions, like most of the normal/flying types, which would probably be flying/normal by this logic, but again, there are some things we just have to accept as Game Freak logic.

PS, Oricorio gets an exception from all this because its primary typing directly affects the type of Revelation Dance, so the order of its types has a mechanics-based reason rather than a lore-based one.

selected by
The dark type isn't literal darkness!!!!! It's just a bad translation of "evil type"!!! Stop triggering me with your misconceptions!!!!!
I know this is a joke comment, but Umbreon is an “evil-type” Pokémon just because it’s nocturnal, not because it’s strictly evil.
There are still a lot more dark Pokemon unrelated to darkness and a lot more darkness-related Pokemon that aren't dark type.
Yes, but darkness is one of the most universally held symbols for evil, plus the fact that there are also plenty of darkness-related dark types that I find the argument to be valid.
You stole my comment >: