I often see an assumption amidst some about things that fall in fantasy or science-fiction categories being "dumb" because they "aren't real", as if it's expected for more realist fiction to be better, smarter, more "serious" or "mature" fiction as a consequence. I don't get this. We've mentioned Borges and Cortázar above, but looking way back in the history we can find numerous examples of utterly fantastical tales amidst some of the most revered and influential texts ever writter, in the form of plays, epic poetry, novels, stories and so on. How are pieces so stooped in mythology and folklore and magic like the Odyssey, the Divine Comedy, the Tale of Tales or The Tempest somehow "dumb", or "dumber" for their inclusion of the supernatural and otherworldly and whatnot? Makes little sense to me.
On the topic of the "souls" in Pillars, I don't see what's inherently dumb about the premise, nor do I see an attempt to *pretend* the game is about more than just its surface level. No, the game simply *is* about more than that. To that point I'll simply link my 6500-word review on the first Pillars where I go fairly in-depth about my thoughts on the game, its themes and so on:
Much of the above applies to the franchise at large, or at the very least the Watcher's arc as we've seen so far. If the saga is about the transition from a theocentric society and culture to an anthropocentric one, about the inversion in power of the human and the divine and so on, all of which also has basis on the cultural shift in the historical period this setting was inspired by, and if the first game is about essentially putting this thesis forth, the second game is about setting up a situation or crisis where both spheres have no other option but to confront one another and reevaluate their understanding and relationship to eachother in face of this event. My criticism towards Deadfire is that it perhaps acts a bit too much as a bridge between two more interesting stories than it does a meatier chapter of its own right, but nevertheless there is a pretty strong thematic core to the game to which all of the fantastical elements respond to, and don't just act as empty dressing to. If anything I find that in a medium full of Elder Scrolls, Witchers and Dragon Ages, this franchise is amidst the ones *least* culpable for just "pretending" at some deeper thematic concern.
Incidentally I've alluded to an oneiric quality - a "strangeness" if you will - in the above review as well which was, as with all of the above, also a major *hook* into the games for me. It seems absurd to me to point this out as a criticism to this game whilst reccuring to both Baldur's Gate and Star Wars of all franchises as examples where it is present, but I also recognize that nothing could be more subjective than what our senses deem "strange" or what we find ourselves hooked by either. Nevertheless, all this talk about what a game "pretends to be" and the assumption that fantasy is inherently dumb makes me think the OP came into the game with some serious biases and preconceptions towards fantasy and fantasy RPGs at large, and maybe a reticence towards interacting on a closer level with its setting, and is letting themselves be guided a little too much by them instead of evaluating the game on its own merits.