Barleywine
As a result of interaction here (thanks for the inspiration, Sybelline ), I created a spread aimed at exploring the "truth or lie" potential of a situation involving contradictory inputs (the "two sides to every story" angle). I have a two-page narrative on using it but won't post it due to the copyright debate. I will say:
I use two tarot decks, one for each line so I can have the potential for the same card to appear in both lines, showing "two sides of the same coin."
I use the "nice" Queen of Hearts and the "nasty" Queen of Spades from a playing card deck just for "atmosphere" (as figure-head "judges," not part of the reading) since I like the idea of those Queens in Hedgewytchery.
I pit the "truth" cards against the "lies" cards in several ways to see which one is most convincing in each context, coming up with interim decisons.
I make a story of each line and compare them, arriving at a preliminary verdict which also factors in which side won the most "rounds" of the debate.
I consider the presence of powerful Trump cards that might override the strong testimony of the other side of the equation. I also factor in Court cards as "who" might be lying or telling the truth.
I use the derived quint card of each line for a "championship round" using the Trumps only, to see if the "eye of the gods" (the archetypal wisdom of the Trumps) favors one perception of the truth over the other, by seeing which one produces the most compelling argument for or against the correctness of the verdict.
I'm still playing around with this and it will likely change.
I use two tarot decks, one for each line so I can have the potential for the same card to appear in both lines, showing "two sides of the same coin."
I use the "nice" Queen of Hearts and the "nasty" Queen of Spades from a playing card deck just for "atmosphere" (as figure-head "judges," not part of the reading) since I like the idea of those Queens in Hedgewytchery.
I pit the "truth" cards against the "lies" cards in several ways to see which one is most convincing in each context, coming up with interim decisons.
I make a story of each line and compare them, arriving at a preliminary verdict which also factors in which side won the most "rounds" of the debate.
I consider the presence of powerful Trump cards that might override the strong testimony of the other side of the equation. I also factor in Court cards as "who" might be lying or telling the truth.
I use the derived quint card of each line for a "championship round" using the Trumps only, to see if the "eye of the gods" (the archetypal wisdom of the Trumps) favors one perception of the truth over the other, by seeing which one produces the most compelling argument for or against the correctness of the verdict.
I'm still playing around with this and it will likely change.