if you did go back and alter the past, you could not return to the future you came from because it would no longer exist.
Not returning to the future (any future) does not remove the paradox.
Our present timeline: Indy did not save Lincoln because Indy was not born until the 20th century. Indy did not exist at Ford's Theater.
Altered timeline: Indy saves Lincoln at Ford's Theater (or SOMETHING to prevent that action). But...how did Indy get there to do that? Even if it was an innocuous act far removed from the actual shooting. Who is your Mom? Where were you 10 years prior? How exactly did you just "pop up," and does no one even ask, "Hey, who's this guy?"
Once you change the timeline, the future also changes. It is POSSIBLE in this scenario that the future does not change in a way that precludes you from going back or even existing. But, that's not deterministic. The problem is, what if the act of "saving Lincoln" means Indy was never born? Since Indy saved Lincoln, and now "space-time" has been altered in such a way that Indy never existed, who saved Lincoln to create the situation that Indy was never born?
The problem is not you returning to the future. It's a real paradox; it can't be solved. The problem is the overlap of two timelines by you (someone from the future in our timeline) preventing something in the past. The overlap is the problem.
With that out of the way, I'd be very careful about risking those unintended consequences. What if by saving Caesar, his continued life led to mass extinction, such as pandemic during the Middle Ages or nuclear war in 1955? Would that be worth it? That's the problem with the Butterfly Effect; you just don't know.
But hey...no "right" answer. That's what distinguishes science from philosophy. The latter is far happier with speculation.