User blog comment:BlueBarracudaMary/Protagonist, Deuteragonist, Tritagonist, Tetartagonist, Pentagonist, What Comes Next?/@comment-961279-20170720135404

First off, are these definitions for groups or rankings? Definitions like this have both meanings, so sometimes people are talking about "out of the ten protagonists that appear in this movie, this one is number four", and sometimes they're talking about "this one is the most important, that one's next important, this one is less important than either of them".

Most often, it's the latter meaning to give an exact ranking amongst the characters. So how about keeping things simple and not trying to go so deep that words have to be made up in order to make it work?

How often do you think a director says when describing a scene in their movie, "Now, here's where the sentagonist, tetartagonist and the nunagonist find the secret cache of weapons and defeat the deuteragonist-turned-primary antagonist"?

Have you ever heard anyone say, "And my sixthary reason for doing this is...."?

When was the last time you saw a character in a movie or TV show wearing a sign around their neck that says, "I'm the eleventh-most important character"?

Once you get past the third level, it's all minor and even that tertiary level is minor enough that you can stop right there. Instead of focusing on exactly how important background characters are to give them an exact ranking, look at what they do, who they interact with, how they treat other people, what their motivations and goals are, what are they interested in?

Instead of trying to rigidly-define a character with a label, spend that time on finding out what makes this character a person and not just a body that takes up space in a scene.