>>33310786Effectively, none whatsoever. But you could argue that it provides an additional nuance to a Pokémon's inspiration and lore.
It's pretty abstract when you think about it, but let's look at Chandelure and Alolan Marowak so it matches your example. The former, which is based on a haunted object, is Ghost first and Fire second, while the latter, based on a living thing, is vice versa. It has no bearing on anything, but that's how it registers in my head.
>>33312275I think the legendary category has always had a lot of potential for ambiguity, Sun and Moon just played with the concept so much it became more notable.
I also feel like the criteria for what is and isn't a "true" legendary has always been a combination of game mechanics and lore, which is why some Pokémon are less disputable than others. The cover mascots, you automatically consider to be legendary Pokémon, no problem there. But with others, you could find a lot more to argue, although the Legendary/Mythical distinction does help to an extent.
We could still get an official confirmation re: the legendary status of Ultra Beasts, but honestly, it all may very well have been muddled to the point where the distinction will probably never be as clear-cut as before.
>>33312299Not to be pedantic, but lore-wise, there are plenty of Pokémon with myths and legends that are undeniably not legendaries. They're not exactly thought to control time and space or the ocean, but their lore seems to carry more weight than your average Pokédex flavor text. Volcarona, Unown, etc. I'm not disagreeing, I'm just saying there's always been a bit of a middle ground.
