Quote Originally Posted by Cleretic View Post
All that, I think, is why all the serious attempts to grapple with the question of this thread either go so far back as to essentially redefine Amaurot, or just throw their hands up and say 'you don't'; Amaurot is designed to fall to its own flaws, and give us the world we live in. That is the story of Amaurot, so saving the Ancients requires rewriting that story from the ground up.
I just want to object to that generalisation, because my own "serious attempt" has no judgement on the nature of the civilisation (besides that its doom is set in stone from present-day Etheirys's perspective) and everything to do with the cost to those doing the saving. It could be attempted by someone who wanted to live in that world so much that they don't care if the original timeline might be destroyed in the process.

That said, your observation makes sense in part, but I think a lot of the story issues with Amaurot come from the writers wanting to have it both ways. They want a mysterious precursor civilisation of all-powerful god-men and a cast of lovable individuals. They want a world where suffering is inevitable and nobody in the universe is immune and a world where Pandora had to open the box to artificially make it so. They can't even seem to decide whether they want to contrast Elpis and Labyrinthos or go for a "researchers are the same everywhere" vibe.