Dear LifeTime,
In addition to the consideration of structural plaster that Tim Rudolph mentioned, there are a number of dumb practical considerations that -- in aggregate -- push most designers and builders toward "non-load-bearing" (or post-and-beam) straw bale construction. Consider these:
1. It's nice to have a roof overhead while stacking bales. Think about when you're going to be building. Even if there is no threat of rain, there's probably threat of mid-day sunshine. Most of us prefer working in the shade.
2. At exterior door openings in load-bearing construction, you're going to have some kind of rough frame -- vertical wood members that extend from the sill plate to the structural members are above the bales. (These end up being vertical load-bearing members, whether or not they're acknowledged as such). In load-bearing construction, this rough frame has to be braced to the ground until the bales are stacked and the roof bearing assembly is installed. In non-load-bearing construction, the rough frame is installed plumb and square to the roof beam. Windows often get a similar treatment.
3. In load-bearing construction, it takes a bit of additional detailing (and a bit of finesse) to get the roof bearing assembly level. In non-loadbearing, you set the beams level (based on a measured bale height) and just stack the bales below/around the beam(s).
4. The plaster question re-stated: non-load-bearing construction gives you a choice of lateral load resisting systems (plaster skins, conventional wood shear walls, pre-engineered shear panels, moment frames, x-bracing). In choosing load-bearing, you've already chosen your system (plaster skin).
5. Structural engineers are well within their comfort zone designing conventional wood structures. We are happy when our structural engineers are happy.
Good luck,
Pete